- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 18:32:24 +0100
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
>>>Aaron Swartz said: <snip/> > 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.) The above is an N3 fragment so I tried to complete it: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @prefix : <#> . @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> . [ a :Stating ; rdf:value { :TestCases :utility :high } ] <http://example.org/predicate> <http://example.org/object>. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- which gives rather odd RDF/XML output that mixes rdf and other namespaces - maybe due to the cwm.py version I've got (1.30). Anyway, it generates a parseType="Quote" block although I understand newer versions use log:quote. 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? rdf:parseType for literals and non-resource values is underspecified in RDF M&S and consequently has been inconsistently implemented. The reasons for this will be dealt with another issue or two, yet to be discussed: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literals-as-resources In summary: Do not use N3 {} in order to talk about RDF (model) or RDF/XML (syntax) since: * it is not really in either - unless you tilt your head and squint :-) * it is being used for radically different things * the mechanism used for N3 {} in RDF/XML is not likely to work well * cwm/N3 is a research tool that makes no promises not to change, so the current interpretation might change again. That's why its research. Dave
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2001 13:32:29 UTC