- 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