Re: action item on reification

> --jos--
> > let's think about a USE of that bag of statements such as
> >
> >   @prefix rdf: <http//www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>.
> >   @prefix a:   <http//description.org/schema/>.
> >   {<http//www.w3.org/Home/Lassila> a:creator "Ora Lassila";
> >     a:title "Ora Lassila's home page"} :attrbutedTo "Ralph Swick".
>
> <snip/>
>
> > an alternative could be
> >
> >   @prefix rdf: <http//www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>.
> >   @prefix log: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#>.
> >   @prefix a:   <http//description.org/schema/>.
> >   {<http//www.w3.org/Home/Lassila> a:creator "Ora Lassila"} a log:Falsehood.
> >
> > and there is no problem to express those
> > cases in an RDF/XML 1.0 compatible syntax
> > and the semantics are quite working

--dave--
> Here we go again; N3's {} generates parseType="Quote" (or log:quote I
> think in later versions).  It is unclear what this means in N3 and
> I've heard different answers from people, and especially it is
> unclear when interpreted in the standard XML syntax.  Unknown
> parseTypes are, according to M&S, equivalent to literal.
>
> parseType="literal" is not something that can be implemented well
> since there multiple ways to handle the content and I've seen this
> happen different ways in many apps (I can go into this in great
> detail when we finally discuss it)
>
> I thus shudder when I see {} used in N3 examples in order to explain
> anything, and especially when used in a context of trying to provide
> clear explanations of the RDF model or syntax.  Please avoid it, and
> avoid using N3 beyond very simple enumeration of statements and
> anonymous nodes - i.e. these N3 parts are OK: [] ; . , <> "" @prefix

I was just trying to help with the issue...
(and thouhgt that is good declarative style i.e. in terms of WHAT)
Until you convince me about a clear alternative, I'm not giving up :-)

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

Received on Friday, 25 May 2001 12:22:35 UTC