- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:48:48 +0100
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
[...]
>
> > >The fact that folks are trying to define new notations
> > >with complex terms such as _:1:bar and so forth suggests that
> > >we *all* are talking about a layer underneath the current
> > >resource-centric graph model,
> >
> > The graphs are common to us all. But that three-node graph
> >
> > X ---foo---> "bar" ---type---> "bas"
> >
> > can't be described using Ntriples, is all.
>
> Which is why I was getting (even more) confused when people
> were trying to express graphs such as the above in NTriples
> but loosing the context of the literal because node identity
> was not indicated.
sorry if I may have confused you...
but we were *not* losing context while writing
"10" rdf:type xsd:decimal; is eg:shoeSize of eg:me.
which is written in the existential conjunctive subset of
TimBL & DanC's N3 http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/Primer.html
we are not loosing context because the ';' repeats that
particular "10" node
OK?
and also *not* loosing context while writing
eg:me eg:shoeSize "10".
eg:me eg:shoeSize _:x.
_:x rdf:type xsd:decimal.
eg:shoeSize rdf:type daml:UniqueProperty.
which is written in N-Triples (using QNames)
OK?
I agree that the former case, not standing in the
typical N3 {} contexts, is not making a lot of sense,
but it works e.g. with http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/
for RDFS entailment test cases...
> If we're going to use notations to express ideas, let's be
> sure that the ideas are actually expressable by the notation.
sure ;-)
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2001 09:06:41 UTC