- From: Paul Tyson <phtyson@sbcglobal.net>
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 07:28:22 -0600
- To: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>
- Cc: tpassin@tompassin.net, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
> On Nov 27, 2018, at 03:34, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com> wrote: > > You missed the part about global identifiers. XML does not have them. > RDF has them built in: URIs. True, but easy to work around by putting ID attributes where needed, and taking some care about the base-uri property of documents. I built a large system comprised of a triple store and xml docbase interoperating in this way. Biggest challenge is preserving element ID integrity under transformation, and disambiguating contexts for documents used in multiple publications. Regards, —Paul >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 6:21 AM Thomas Passin <tpassin@tompassin.net> wrote: >> >>> On 11/26/2018 10:54 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >>> >>> XML and JSON are all about tree structures. RDF defines the more >>> flexible data structure of graphs >> >> It probably doesn't matter for this discussion, but I've seen statements >> like this too often. XML actually can represent graphs perfectly well. >> One way is by using ID/IDREFs, and there are many other ways. Just >> because an XML document reads serially from start to finish doesn't mean >> it has to represent a tree instead of a graph (leaving aside the matter >> that a a tree is a particular kind of graph structure!). In fact, >> that's obvious because the XML syntax for RDF interchange describes RDF >> graphs. >> >> XML elements (the ones without ID values, anyway) can be considered to >> be typed anonymous nodes. You could regard them as bnodes that have a >> type relation but not an ID. >> >> TomP >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2018 13:28:48 UTC