W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > November 2009

Re: RDF 2 Wishlist

From: carmen <_@whats-your.name>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 13:34:35 -0800
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-ID: <20091105213435.GA3707@x200.Belkin>
> >inventing a system of referring to
> >huge sets of those in a URI. Not doable.

huge sets of triples like..named graphs? its already being done

> I don't see why naming triples is not doable

URIs for everything is a foundation i stick to. as well 

im interested in your scheme, i just do <<Suri>,<Puri>,<Ouri>>

where O(bject)uri is either a data: URI or a file:// or http:// URL to a blob (or a (b)node with type/lang/encoding-tag fields around a blob)

the named-graph crowd seems to advocating creating a graph for each triple youd want to reify, i take it. then youd have ot think up a name for that graph, which hopefully doesnt clash with the name of a normal resource in the system, and somehow usefully describes the triple? id love to see the compoendium of examples that would convince me named graphs is the way to go , not that im likely to switch

> collections of triples isn't either, we already have native lists in RDF.

> From the perspective of a triplestore it ought to be optimisable (There
> is no need for them to represent it as triples internally), and in
> serializations sugared-syntax would be sufficient to make it usable.
> My reply to the original post explains some of the reasons I think we
> cannot do without meta-triples.
Received on Thursday, 5 November 2009 21:35:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:03 UTC