- From: Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:06:27 +0200
- To: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, "Karsten Otto" <otto@math.fu-berlin.de>
- Cc: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
From: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk> > > ... 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... > > We thought of that. But slipping in such a huge change to RDF > in an existing syntax wasn't where we ended up. > > I noticed that Named Graphs extends RDF in at least two ways: > 1) RDF triple subjects can be literals > 2) RDF triples are quads (sic) > > so it's really Named non-RDF Graphs. > Really? A collection of RDF/XML documents on theWeb map naturally into the abstract syntax of Named Graphs, by using the first xml:base declaration in the document or the URL from which an RDF/XML file is retrieved as a name for the graph given by the RDF/XML file. So there is no problem with using Named Graphs as internal storage model for a provenance aware RDF repository and still using RDF/XML to import and exchange data. TriX and TriG are only making the data exchange more comfortable. Chris > For reference, RDF triples are defined at > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#dfn-rdf-triple > starting "An RDF triple contains three components:" > > Dave > > > >
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 15:06:10 UTC