- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:10:07 +0000
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 14 Jan 2010, at 17:31, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> 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
list/vector/sequence/whatever-you-want-to-call-it.
So, it would still bind in a query:
[using the old list syntax for the sake of an example]
<a> <b> (1 2 3) .
SELECT ?z
WHERE {
<a> <b> ?z .
}
and the return value would be a list "literal".
- Steve
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 19:10:36 UTC