- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:17:01 +0100
- To: Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Cc: "Michael Schneider" <m_schnei@gmx.de>, semantic-web@w3.org, jjc@hpl.hp.com
On 14 Aug 2007, at 10:24, Story Henry wrote: > > Does the current standard not in fact allow graphs through the use > of XML/RDF literals? If an RDF document contains a relation > pointing to an RDF/XML literal, then that RDF/XML is playing > somewhat the role of a graph, no? I mean it is opaque in the same > way a graph is... [snip] I've pushed this from here to Sunday with no takers. I think we actually had it in a version of OWL-S for a while to handle preconditions and effects. We ended up taking it out, IIRC, because 1) tool support was poor, 2) you don't end up with and obvious "object" in the object (other than the literal itself) so some common parsing patterns (i.e., over graphs, not over the serialization) got much trickier, and 3) there are issues, though I don't recall what they are, about, e.g., namespaces or something. A solution, nevertheless, worth investigating. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2007 10:16:01 UTC