Re: namedNode? in predicate position?

• From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
• Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 14:20:10 +0100
• To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
• CC: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <30709.999523210@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>Art Barstow said:

<snip/>

> I like the idea of allowing predicates to be princeNodes
> because it would eliminate special casing predicates (and simplify 
> N-Triples a little).  However, I agree with Dave's position (although
> M&S is not explicit on this) and thus have written some apps that 
> assume predicates will be URI-refs and not princeNodes.

I don't have any problem with the change - just to note it *is* a
change and we should take care that if we do this, we have good
reasons and consider what the change causes deployed applications.

The current RDF/XML syntax cannot generate any model with non-URI-ref
predicates (unless you reify) thus that means some models can be
created that can not be transfered in the standard RDF/XML syntax
(although this is true for other models too).

For evidence on implementation: my Redland system has no problem
handling princeNode predicates.

Dave

Received on Monday, 3 September 2001 09:20:11 UTC