W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2018

Re: Graphs too? N3? Re: ✅ Literals as subjects Re: Toward easier RDF: a proposal

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 18:43:47 -0800
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=6nk_+MVS9tmRdmfd_o0mcGzjsoD4WthL_RF+7P_qc66Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: Nathan Rixham <nathan@webr3.org>, Austin Wright <aaa@bzfx.net>, phayes@ihmc.us, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>, Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se>, Axel Polleres <axel@polleres.net>
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, 01:30 Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org wrote:

>
>
> On 2018-11 -25, at 02:41, Nathan Rixham <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2018, 02:28 Austin Wright <aaa@bzfx.net wrote:
>
>> However, if I should be able to make statements like this about strings,
>> why not any data type? Why not an entire RDF graph, like { { <foo> a <bar>
>> . } published “2014-02-28T00:00:00Z”^^xsd:dateTIme .  } ?
>>
>
> Very useful, +1
>
>
> Well that is N3.
>
> $ echo " { <foo> a <bar> . } :published 2012-03-04 ." | cwm --quiet
>      @prefix : <> .
>     {
>         :foo     a :bar .
>
>
>         }     <#published> "2012-03-04"^^<
> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#date> .
>
>
> $
>
> works for me
>
> Standardizing N3 is I think beyond the scope of David’s plea o make rdf
> more approachable.  But is a good idea also.
>

How many implementations do we have?

Cwm, Jos de Roo's, ... others?

Tim
>
Received on Monday, 17 December 2018 02:44:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:42:03 UTC