- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 17:22:31 -0700
- To: "Michael Kifer" <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Cc: "Aaron Swartz" <me@aaronsw.com>, "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
From: "Michael Kifer" <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
> >>>>> "SR" == "Seth Russell" <of Mon, 03 Jun 2002 10:35:26 PDT> writes:
> MK> NTriples can be naturally encoded in XML and exchanged.
> SR> Is that actually true? How?
> <triple><subject ...>subj</subject><property>...</property> <object> ...
</object> </triple>
>
> An attribute in subject/object can tell whether the content is a literal,
> uriref, or a blank node.
> Cross-referencing blank nodes presents some small problem, which can be
> fixed in a number of ways.
> But, as I said before, a better syntax would be to use F-logic, which is
> not that far from the triples, but is cleaner. (Reification and blank
nodes
> are easier to represent.)
Ok, now I know what you meant ... but incidentally that is not N-Triples
.... for the record, below are some references to N-Triples, which to my
knowledg cannot be 'naturally encoded in XML' unless you do something like
ParseType='literal' but then just about anything could be 'naturally encoded
in XML'.
Seth Russell
language: Semenglish
N-Triples
seeUrl <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/ntriples/>,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/#ntriples>.
Received on Monday, 3 June 2002 20:29:26 UTC