Re: Slim RDF

Sergey Melnik wrote:
> 
> Following the recent discussion on wrt syntax and namespaces I'd like to
> mention the internal data model based on RDF that I'm using in my
> research:
>
> Let U be the Unicode alphabet and U* the set of strings defined over U.
> The set of entities E and the set of statements V are defined using the
> following recursive definition:
> 
> 1. U*xU* is subset of E (any tuple consisting of two strings is an
> entity; the first string of the tuple is called namespace of the entity,
> the second string is referred to as name of the entity)
> 
> 2. ExExE is subset of V (every tuple of three entities constitutes a
> statement)
> 
> 3. V is subset of E (every statement is an entity)
> 
> A subset of V is called "model". Without reification, E=U*xU* and V=E^3.
> 
> The set of literals L is defined as L = {"urn:rdf:literal"} x U* (i.e.
> literals are resources and can be used as subjects of statements). Other
> primitive data types are handled similarly, e.g. ("urn:rdf:literal","5")
> != ("urn:rdf:integer","5").
> 
> Notice that namespaces are first-class citizens. Resource ("xyz","")
> 'reifies' namespace "xyz", so that statements about primitive classes
> like the class of literals are possible.

I agree it does.
But why do you bother with { namespace, name } pairs, when the RDF model is about URIs ?

Well I know it is also about literals,
but it seems that you boldly pushed literals in the resource pool,
which is all right to me, I must say.

I know too that the RDF syntax in recomended in M&S is about namespaces and names,
but this is a syntactical issue only.
In the end, triples are only made of URIs, namespaces do not count.

 Or do they ?

  Pierre-Antoine Champin

-- 
Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the
universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
(Bill Watterson -- Calvin & Hobbes)

Received on Wednesday, 21 February 2001 07:39:28 UTC