- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 13:50:27 -0500
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk> wrote: >> Well if this is true than we're going to need another class to undo this >> effect. The same triple can be asserted by multiple people and often we'll >> want to talk about the stating. Hmm, perhaps: >> [ a :Stating ; rdf:value { :TestCases :utility :high } ] > <snip/> >> >> (To DaveB, the {} in this example should resolve to a single reified >> triple.) > > When someone uses n3's {}, they need to say what they mean by it - > does it auto-reify the contained statements, somehow 'quote' the > content, do the same as parseType="literal" or something else? Which is exactly why I stated my "To DaveB" bit at the end. In case, for some reason, you didn't understand it, I meant for it to end up looking somewhat like: <Stating> <rdf:value> <rdf:Statement> <rdf:subject rdf:resource="#TestCases" /> <rdf:predicate rdf:resource="#utility" /> <rdf:object rdf:resource="#high" /> </rdf:Statement> </rdf:value> </Stating> This is a similar interpretation as used by EARL. I hoped that my description of meaning would clear things up, but apparently not. I hope that this clears things up -- I just didn't want to type all that XML> -- [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com> ]
Received on Friday, 1 June 2001 14:50:39 UTC