Re: An alternative RDF

Hello Victor,

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 04:17:59PM +0300, Victor Porton wrote:
> My conclusion from this is that the RDF specification should be changed

Please read it first. If you only have time for one document, read this one:

Lots of math and logic inside - you will probably like it.

> And despite of that it is not already in the RDF standard, it seems that most of implementation already provide support for this: Using an RDF library I can tell which nodes are blank and which are not.

When producing RDF. But we are talking about consuming RDF here.

> The rationale: Users should be able to construct an RDF file in such a way that loading more RDF files would not break its consistency.

It is already possible to construct RDF files in such a way that loading more
RDF files does not break consistency. It is in fact not so easy to break
consistency in RDF[S] (are there other ways than ill types literals?).

Where are the RDF/S/OWL triples defining your consistency criteria?

What would you say if I demanded that math be changed in a way that adding 
more axioms would not break consistency?


Michael Brunnbauer

++  Michael Brunnbauer
++  netEstate GmbH
++  Geisenhausener Straße 11a
++  81379 München
++  Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
++  Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89 
++  E-Mail
++  Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
++  USt-IdNr. DE221033342
++  Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
++  Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel

Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 13:47:00 UTC