Re: N3 and N-Triples (was: RDF in HTML: Approaches)

"Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net> writes:
>
> 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'.

This is too subtle for me. Do you mean that you actually want to write
stuff like <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source> inside the XML
representation of N-triples?

I meant that there is a reasonably simple XML language that is isomorphic
to N-triples. This is all you need. Write in a simple non-XML surface
language and have machine translate it into XML. XML is not for people --
it is for machines. All you need is a 1-1 mapping between a
human-friendly surface language and machine's.


	--michael

Received on Monday, 3 June 2002 20:57:29 UTC