W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2008

Re: is this valid to make a named graph in RDFa?

From: Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 11:18:37 +0100
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, semantic-web@w3.org, ben@adida.net, michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at
Message-Id: <3172BE23-F645-4F1C-9E50-C3F0F8674005@bblfish.net>
To: Golda Velez <gv@btucson.com>

On 6 Mar 2008, at 05:04, Golda Velez wrote:
> Hi Ivan - sure, of course the tag is not the point -
> But, if assigning a URI to a statement in a standard way is not the  
> way to
> address the statement, is there any way to do it?  And why not use a  
> URI that
> refers to the start of the individual triple statement?
> I read the post about using <u1 u2 u3> but I think that could get  
> cumbersome
> quickly.  Naming things is just so fundamental to programming,  
> language,
> abstract thinking, math etc it seems absurd to not be able to simply  
> name a
> statement...

If you want to make statements as complex as that then you should use  
N3. It is perhaps not a bad thing that the more widespread RDF  
serialisations do not make it easy to make statements about  
statements. Life is already complicated enough with getting people to  
express what they believe. Having people start making statements about  
what they believe other people believe, or statements about what they  
believe other people should assume other people believe, would really  
make things a lot more complicated, and not necessarily any better.

But if you really need to play with that use N3. The best is to try to  
keep things as simple as possible.


Home page: http://bblfish.net/

Received on Thursday, 6 March 2008 10:19:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:05 UTC