W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2014

Re: An alternative RDF

From: Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 23:08:35 +0300
To: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
Cc: SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2404401404936515@web26g.yandex.ru>
09.07.2014, 23:03, "Ruben Verborgh" <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>:
>> šRead my examples earlier in this mailing list.
>
> Yes, in another thread.
> But the only thing I found is:
>> š<http://example.org/example-transformation>:precedence <#macro> ;

Well, there are more my letters in this list.

> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2014Jul/0070.html)
>
> So there are never two values for :precedence.
> In order for us to help you, it could be useful to see a concrete case
> where you would have two different values for :precedence,
> since you said
>>>> šIf we load data from an other RDF file, nothing prevents them be merged in such as way that there may be more than one :precedence for the same object,
>> šThe trouble is that I load new RDF files dynamically and after loading one more file the valid data may suddenly turn invalid.

<http://example.org/example-transformation>:precedence <#macro> ; # in a.ttl
<http://example.org/example-transformation>:precedence <#format> ; # in b.ttl

> So we have the situation (I presume) where a.ttl and b.ttl are valid,
> but where the combination of both is not?

Yes, see the above example.

> Are a.ttl and b.ttl then universally valid, or just in a certain context?

I don't understand this question.

I am writing a specification to which they should conform.

--
Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2014 20:09:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:17 UTC