- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:22:17 -0700
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>There seems to be some divergence of view on this. Lets make it an issue. > >Does the model theory take a position on prince arcs? Prince ARCs?? Yes. Its position right now is they are illegal (same as N-triples, was my understanding). However, it could allow them if you really want them, nothing much would need to be changed. Pat > >Brian > >Dave Beckett wrote: > > > > >>>jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com said: > > > while at next telecon agenda items, > > > what about the N-triples/MT related questions > > > 1. predicate ::= uriref versus predicate ::= uriref | namedNode? > > > > Does RDF allow, let's call it, non-URI-ref for predicates? > > I don't think so, at present. In the graph model in the original > > M&S, predicates are arrows with URIs, they are never empty circles. > > > > > 2. why do we use the term namedNode for a node which is in fact >not named? > > > > It was anonNode - which was probably worse, so I changed it. > > How about princeNode? > > > > It is just a token in the N-Triples grammar and if it will reduce any > > implied meaning by changing the characters of the token, let's do it. > > > > > ps question 1 is in fact related with the problem to write > > > e.g. the following N-triples > > > <#a> _:x <#d>. > > > _:x <#b> <#c>. > > > in RDF/XML syntax > > > Jeremy/Dave, do you have trouble with that? > > > > Well at present I say it is illegal N-Triples. > > > > Dave --------------------------------------------------------------------- (650)859 6569 w (650)494 3973 h (until September) phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2001 15:21:09 UTC