- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:06:35 +0000
- To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, 3.org@dr-nick.w3.org
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
At 00:06 24/02/04 +0100, Jos De_Roo wrote:
>While at it, I'm still doing well without additional
>notation for naming graphs. For the normal case of flat
>graphs written in rdf documents with uri's it is quite
>obvious for an engine to keep track from where it got a
>specific triple.
This reminds me of one of those simple ideas that's been kicking around my
head for a while, but I don't think I ever expressed...
Notation3 (as I understand it) has a simple way of creating named graphs
within a document; the idiom I use is:
uri :- { <formula> }
It would be a small extension, I think, to do something similar with RDF/XML:
<rdf:RDF rdf:ID="foo">
:
(RDF statements)
:
</rdf:RDF>
or
<rdf:RDF rdf:about="uri">
:
(RDF statements)
:
</rdf:RDF>
Thus, an RDF element might be treated as a syntax construct for a node that
happens to be a graph.
Is this conceptually broken in any way I haven't noticed?
#g
------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2004 05:31:02 UTC