On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 08:50 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote: > [cc's trimmed] > > I'm with Jeremy here, the problem's economic not technical. > > If we could introduce subjects-as-literals in a way that: > (a) doesn't invalidate any existing RDF, and > (b) doesn't permit the generation of RDF/XML that existing applications cannot > parse, > > then I think there's a possible way forward. Yes, there's such a way, more over, it will be just a small subset of a richer language that is widely used already, so it will require very little coding. When there's a need in SPARQL-like extensions, like subjects-as-literals, there's a straightforward way of serializing data as SPARQL fragments. Note that in this way not only subjects-as-literals are available, but even SPARQL 1.1 features like path expressions or "for each X" expressed as "?X" in an appropriate place of an appropriate BGP. Best Regards, Ivan Mikhailov, OpenLink Software http://virtuoso.openlinksw.comReceived on Friday, 2 July 2010 09:33:08 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:19 UTC