Re: Alternatives to containers/collections (was Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0")

On Jan 14, 2010, at 10:35 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:

> 2010/1/14 Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>:
>
>> A lot, perhaps all, of this hair could be avoided if RDF allowed  
>> general
>> tuples as well as triples. All that is needed is some way to put N  
>> things
>> into a sequence: so, put N things into a sequence. The 'graph  
>> model' would
>> be a hyperlink, drawn as a polygon (eg triangle for N=3) rather  
>> than a line.
>> In triples-style syntax, it would just be moving a dot.
>
> Don't think I fully understand what you have in mind, are you talking:
>
> <s> <p> <x, y, z> (which is kinda supported already with turtle  
> syntax)

I meant this, yes. But what I have in mind, it does not mean shorthand  
for
s p x
s p y
s p z
so I don't think it is already there.

Pat


>
> or
>
> <s> <p1,x> <p2,y> <p3,z> (which is also kinda supported already,  
> albeit lengthy)
>
> or something else?
>
> n-tuples would certainly have the advantage of mapping more directly
> to SQL-style data
>
> Cheers,
> Danny.
>

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 17:35:55 UTC