- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:42:27 -0500
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, aemallea@ing.puc.cl, axel.polleres@deri.org
On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 15:14 -0500, Ivan Herman wrote: [ . . . ] > I think it would still be better to explain these things in a syntax > independent way. After all, I may want to use JSON-LD or RDFa... > > Distilling the various mails and concentrating on bnodes only, what > seems to be the pattern is > > - bnodes can appear in at most one triple as an object > - there can be no cycle in the graphs involving bnodes > > Would that suffice as a more formal definition? As of today I think that would suffice, though I'm unsure of the details of how the "no bnode cycles" constraint should be formalized. Perhaps Jeremy Carroll or one of the authors of http://web.ing.puc.cl/~marenas/publications/iswc11.pdf could comment. But Turtle currently does not allow inverse property notation: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/95 If that feature were added and the syntax independent definition were still going to track what can be expressed in Turtle without explicit bnodes, then the definition would get more complex. -- David Booth, Ph.D. http://dbooth.org/ Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of his employer.
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 20:43:00 UTC