- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 17:38:55 -0400
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
On 9/22/22 16:34, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: > I think it is useful to consider every proposed extension, and carefully > consider whether it really requires an extension of the underlying data > model, or whether it can be managed purely as syntactic sugar. Agreed. That would be best for backward compatibility. And it occurs to me that some of these ideas for new "built-in" object types, such as arrays and composite object, could actually be implemented as syntactic sugar for named graphs. For example, this array of dog show winners: # Example 1 :dogShow winners ( :ginger :bailey ) . might be treated as syntactic sugar for this TriG: # Example 1-expanded :dogShow :winners N2 . N2 { :dogShow :winners [ 0 :ginger ; 1 :bailey ] . } where N2 is an auto-generated named graph name of some kind (TBD) -- perhaps a blank node, a relative URI, or a Skolem URI. By "unblessing" N2, you get to "see" the triples that implement that list object. And this composite diagnosis object, used for an n-ary relation: # Example 6 :christine :diagnosis @[ :disease :breastCancer ; :probability 0.8 ] . might be treated as syntactic sugar for this TriG: # Example 6-expanded :christine :diagnosis N6 . N6 { :christine :diagnosis [ :disease :breastCancer ; :probability 0.8 ] . } And this RDF-star syntax: # Example 9 :a :name "Alice" {| :statedBy :bob ; :recorded "2021-07-07"^^xsd:date |} . could be syntactic sugar for this TriG: # Example 9-expanded :a :name "Alice" . N9 { :a :name "Alice" . } N9 :statedBy :bob ; :recorded "2021-07-07"^^xsd:date . This would have the benefit of supporting labeled property graphs, n-ary relations and arrays all under the same mechanism, without adding anything to the RDF core. Thoughts? David Booth
Received on Thursday, 22 September 2022 21:39:08 UTC