- From: Karsten Otto <otto@math.fu-berlin.de>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:56:31 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- cc: Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch, dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: >> >>> Quads are also a bad standard since they >>> mean different things to different people; i.e. not a standard. >> >> That's precisely why they need to be standardized, to ensure >> that they >> mean the same things to different people :-) > > +1 > > And my recommendation would be that the fourth component of > a quad would be a graph name (which also would be optional). > > Named graphs are a generic extension which can be very strongly > grounded in the RDF MT (since most of what you need is already > there), and provide for all of the other use cases employing > quads; and simply by defining the appropriate vocabularies. > > In a sense, it's fair to argue that named graphs are not an > extension at all, since as resources, their definition is > central to the RDF MT, and any resource can be denoted by > URI, so if you're going to have quads rather than triples, > named graphs are the option which "extend" RDF the least. > ... and you can even get them quite easily into RDF/XML, simply by allowing rdf:about/rdf:ID/rdf:nodeID on the <rdf:RDF> wrapper. Although there are some good arguments for a completetly different serialization syntax such as TriX... Regards, Karsten
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 13:56:37 UTC