- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:08:21 +0100
- To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Cc: "Stephen Petschulat/CanWest/IBM" <spetschu@ca.ibm.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 08:16 PM 7/16/01 -0500, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>On Monday, July 16, 2001, at 02:48 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>
>> E.g. when exchanging RDF between systems (the reason for
>> standardization), do we really want to specify that the existence of a
>> node, without properties, is significant? If so, we must define the
>> significance, and that looks awkward to me.
>
>Can you explain why this seems awkward to you? It seems like a perfectly
>reasonable thing to do to me.
>
>The alternative seems to declare that:
>
><rdf:Description rdf:about="foo" />
>
>means:
>
><foo> rdf:type rdfs:Resource .
>
>which seems even more awkward.
Actually, I think that is a relatively painless way of interpreting nodes
without properties (one that I hadn't thought of).
The "awkwardness" to which I refer is:
(a) how is one to represent such a node in N-triples? Currently, there's
no obvious way (apart from what you suggest above).
(b) having selected an N-triples representation, some kind of semantics
must be defined -- it seems rather pointless to take special steps to
define a form and then say it adds nothing to the meaning.
That said, I think your suggestion above quite neatly addresses both
concerns (assuming that semantics for any triple of the form:
<foo> rdf:type <bar> .
must be defined).
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2001 13:04:23 UTC