W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2012

Re: Why do we name nodes and not edges?

From: トーレ エリクソン <tore.eriksson@po.rd.taisho.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:38:18 +0900
To: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Natasa Bulatovic <bulatovic@mpdl.mpg.de>, "<semantic-web@w3.org>" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20120731083536.2290.9D98B4E7@po.rd.taisho.co.jp>
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?


> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:38 UTC