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

Re: RDF Triples in XML, named graphs

From: Bob MacGregor <macgregor@ISI.EDU>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:54:40 -0800
Message-Id: <>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
I didn't really have in mind an ordering, merely
a distinction (two or more graphs, in any order).
In logic, axioms (triples) have no order, and if
possible, RDFisms should preserve that.

On another issue, if we put provenance information
in a graph separate from the graph it comments upon,
we might be one step closer to avoiding paradox (but in
fact paradox is quite hard to avoid, so I'd want to
bring in someone with a first name starting with 'P'
to figure out how to do that).

Cheers, Bob

At 10:33 AM 2/12/2004, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>Bob MacGregor wrote:
>>In a practical sense, that means that every TriX document should
>>contain at least two graphs, the second one commenting on the first.
>One could have a convention where the first graph is always asserted, and 
>may simply be a single statement that the second graph is not asserted ...
>(Distinguishing the first allows more than two graphs).

Robert MacGregor
Senior Project Leader
Phone: 310/448-8423, Fax:  310/822-6592
Mobile: 310/251-8488

USC Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way, Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2004 17:59:00 UTC

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