- From: R.V.Guha <guha@guha.com>
- Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 15:51:30 -0700
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Sandro Hawke wrote: > Well, doesn't this say more than just the triple? It also asserts the existence of the reification of the triple. Beyond that, by connecting rdf:Assertion to truth, you open the door to things that folks like Pat don't like ... I still think rdf should have chosen s-expressions to represent the graph ... > <rdf:RDF> > <rdf:Assertion> > <rdf:subject rdf:resource="...some URI-Reference..." /> > <rdf:predicate rdf:resource="...some URI-Reference..." /> > <rdf:object rdf:resource="...some URI-Reference..." /> > </rdf:Assertion> > </rdf:RDF> > > [each of those three properties could have had a literal value instead.] > > This structure has the advantage of allowing serializations that the > traditional RDF/XML syntax prohibits. All it requires beyond RDF M&S > is the definition of rdf:Assertion as a subClass of rdf:Statement > which has the semantics that any assertion described must be taken to > be as true as the description. > > > If we had such, it would be another way to avoid distraction by serialization > > details. > > I'm with you on that. But some people ARE very focussed on the > details of the RDF/XML syntax, and I thought I would nudge them a > little more towards simplicity. > > -- sandro
Received on Sunday, 7 April 2002 18:53:54 UTC