- From: David Menendez <zednenem@psualum.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:05:46 -0500
- To: seth@robustai.net
- Cc: rdfig <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 10:04 AM -0800 2002-11-25, Seth Russell wrote:
>David Menendez wrote:
>>One possibility:
>>
>>{ :Stassi a :Cat; :belongsTo :Me. }
>> dc:source <http://example.org/c.rdf>;
>> dcq:issued "2002-11-22t10:00z";
>> eg:encodedAs xml"<rdf:RDF ... </rdf:RDF>";
>> eg:signature "...".
>>
>>Alternately, you could have an explicit node for B.
>>
>>{ :Stassi a :Cat; :belongsTo :Me. } eg:derivedFrom [
>> a eg:Representation;
>> dc:source <http://example.org/c.rdf>;
>> dcq:issued "2002-11-22t10:00z";
>> dc:format "application/rdf+xml";
>> dc:language "en";
>> eg:encodedAsText "<rdf:RDF ... </rdf:RDF>";
>>].
>
>I'm ok with both of thoses; but we don't end up with a URI for the graph.
That's an artifact of N3. It shouldn't matter whether a resource
representing a graph is identified by a URIref or not. N3 just
doesn't have a convenient way to say what that identifier is.
So, there's no reason why you couldn't do something like:
<#Graph1234> dc:source <http://example.org/c.rdf>.
Where <#Graph1234> indicates a resource corresponding to a graph of
statements derived from <http://example.org/c.rdf>.
--
Dave Menendez - zednenem@psualum.com - http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem/
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 14:04:30 UTC