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

On 14 Jan 2010, at 17:31, Dan Brickley wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Pat Hayes <> wrote:
>> 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.
> I periodically wonder what an RDF without the binary restriction would
> look like.
> Would each property/relation have a fixed arity, eg. dc:source might
> 'be a 4', 'foaf:knows' a 7? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. So
> presumably they'd vary freely. In which case, we have a lot of
> figuring out to do when wondering whether   livesWith(alice, bob,
> 2007, 'y') implies livesWith(alice,bob) or livesWith(alice, bob, 'y',
> 'foo.html'). The binary straightjacket makes some of these questions
> impossible, albeit maddeningly...

I was thinking something more like a new literal type, which was a  

So, it would still bind in a query:

[using the old list syntax for the sake of an example]
<a> <b> (1 2 3) .

   <a> <b> ?z .

and the return value would be a list "literal".

- Steve

Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 19:10:36 UTC