- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:17:45 +0200
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-03-20 12:38, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: >> Another possibility is to allow certain namespaces to be declared to >> be dark, so that any triple using a property from a dark namespace is >> considered to be unasserted. Again, this does not require any change >> to the syntax, but only some extra conventions to be added to the >> language. >> > > This could be a namespace prefix rather than the namespace e.g. > > > <rdf:RDF xmlns:eg="http://example.org/" xmlns:egdark="http://example.org/" > rdf:darkPrefixes="egdark"> > <rdf:Description eg:aserted="foo" egd:unasserted="bar" /> > > </rdf:RDF> > > Jeremy This becomes problemmatic (in a practical sense) if we want to use the same vocabularies for both asserted and unasserted statements. An alternative: How about an element rdf:Expression (or some such) which is in all other ways identical to rdf:Description except that statements are not asserted. E.g. <rdf:Expression rdf:about="#Bob> <ex:age>35</ex:age> </rdf:Expression> gives us :Bob ex:age "35" ; or - :Bob ex:age "35" . This doesn't require any significant changes to current parsers and the only modification is to activate a flag when seeing rdf:Expression rather than rdf:Description and add the non-asserted punctuation when outputting the triples. Eh? Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 06:15:36 UTC