Re: Why do we name nodes and not edges?

Hugh Glaser wrote:
> With respect to naming triples, at first sight it seems to me there is
> a perfectly sensible way of doing it, as I described in an earlier
> message. There is no need to describe a language for encoding the whole
> triple a unique URI for the edge uniquely identifies the triple, and
> seems quite natural.
> This URI can then be subPropertyOf whatever it would have been in the
> general form.
> So we have gained identifiers for triples for the possible maximum cost
> of one extra subPropertyOf triple for each triple to be identified.
> And now RDF can be used to make statements about each triple (edge), and
> I can do it all in Linked Data.
> 
> This doesn't immediately solve the same thing as Named Graphs, where
> groups of triples/edges needed to be identified.
> But can't the edges be gathered into Classes?
> And with multiple inheritance, you can have arbitrary membership of
> Classes by any edge, giving much more power than simple Named Graphs,
> where triples/edges can only be members of one graph?

[snip]

> Is there anything technically wrong with what I am describing?

I find this solution quite intriguing as well. It would be easier to
implement if RDF were to allow blank nodes in the predicate position.

Tore Eriksson

_______________________________________________________________
<> [ rdfs:subPropertyOf dc:creator ] [
   foaf:name "Tore Eriksson",
             "トーレ　エリクソン"@jp;
   foaf:mbox_sha1sum "2bd9291b301f112775e118f96eb63314594b1a86";
   foaf:workplaceHomepage <http://www.taisho.co.jp/> ].

Received on Monday, 30 July 2012 23:39:55 UTC