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

Re: Toward easier RDF: a proposal

From: Paul Tyson <phtyson@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 07:28:22 -0600
Cc: tpassin@tompassin.net, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3842971A-A938-43E5-AD99-F7F805CD5088@sbcglobal.net>
To: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>

> 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.

>> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:57 UTC