- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 19:28:53 -0600
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> > 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* > >If we're talking about triples here where literals are >acting as subjects, then we need to base the triples >on node identity, right? > >I.e. (presuming nodes with identical uriref labels are "merged") > > statement = subject predicate object '.' > subject = uriref | ( nodeID ':' literal ) | nodeID > predicate = uriref > object = subject | literal > >Note that only literal nodes that act as subjects must >be specified for nodeID, otherwise, just use the literal. Right. The P(++) and X (new X, not old X which is now URV) require that two different occurrences of the same literal be distinguishable, so they require this kind of use of nodeIDs on literal nodes. The other proposals (S, DC and oldX=URV) don't need this complication, however, since they can assume tidiness on literal nodes as well as urirefs. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 20:28:48 UTC