- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:14:02 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote: > Graham Klyne wrote: > > [...] > >>Dan, >> >>would it break your mental model if the above N-triples-like syntax was >>modified to be: >> >> terms: >> constant (URIs w/fragids) >> string literals >> bnodes (existentially quantified variables) >> statement: >> term constant term. >> formula: >> statement* >> >>? >> > > Umm... mental model... dunno. It involves 2 changes: > * no literals in the property slot. no great loss there... > > * no bnodes in the property slot. Real loss of functionality. > I don't have a strong argument that it was ever there, but > I use it quite a bit, and I expect there are things we > want to model with RDF that won't work without it. > (in particular: languages with n-ary functions/relations). Dan-- Could you send (or point to) one of your examples of bnodes in the property slot used for n-ary relations? If this is legit, I think something should be said about it in the Primer (e.g., in the section on "Complex Data"). Also, something ought to be said about this approach in whatever replaces the current section 7.3 of the M&S, which describes "the recommended technique" for representing n-ary relations in RDF as using an intermediate bnode subject/object, rather than a bnode predicate. --Frank -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 09:08:42 UTC