W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > February 2004

Re: RDF Triples in XML, named graphs

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:45:27 +0000
Message-ID: <402BBBB7.5050502@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Bob MacGregor <macgregor@ISI.EDU>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Hi Bob

When writing the paper, we discussed this particularly point, i.e. whether 
"asserted" could be a triple or not. I argued that it could not be, because 
you need to know where to start when reading what the propositional intent 
of a document is.

For instance a graph

_:a :-

{ _:a trix:asserted "false" }

must be unasserted, but in a curious sort of way that is because we are 
first reading it as asserted to learn that it is unasserted.

Worse is:

_:a :-

{ _:b trix:asserted "false" .
   _:a trix:asserted "true" .


_:b :-

{ _:a trix:asserted "false" .
   _:b trix:asserted "true" .

Where one of the two graphs can be read as asserted and the other as 
unasserted, but we don't know which.

My take is that in general you are right, properties of graphs should just 
be described in RDF, but specifically asserted has to be special.
I managed to convince to Patrick enough for the paper, but I am sure he 
would be pleased if you could pull my rationale to pieces.


Bob MacGregor wrote:

> In the TriX paper, you occasionally resort to attribute
> syntax like  "asserted=false"  instead of triples syntax.
> Is this sugar-coating or fundamental?
> If fundamental, then I would guess that there is something
> wrong with your semantics, since
> assertions about graphs shouldn't get any special
> treatment.  If its sugar-coating (which I hope it is),
> then I would recommend eliminating it in your text
> at least in the initial introduction, since it leaves
> the impression that there are two different syntaxes,
> one for assertions about ordinary "nodes" and one
> for graph nodes.
> Cheers, Bob
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2004 12:47:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:47 UTC