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

Re: Graph naming?

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:12:21 +0100
To: "Graham Klyne <gk" <gk@ninebynine.org>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFDB61897C.D067C871-ONC1256E44.003ABD8B-C1256E44.003D9182@agfa.be>

Graham Klyne wrote:
> 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
> 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> }

You mentioned that some time ago, and indeed, looking into
there's line 606
            if str[j:j+2] ==":-":

and line 1294
        self._write(" :- {")

but I can't find anything of that in

My point was that in our test case work we never came
to a point where we needed something like that...

> It would be a small extension, I think, to do something similar with
>     <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
> happens to be a graph.
> Is this conceptually broken in any way I haven't noticed?

I believe that Jonathan Borden proposed something like that in
and DanC found that an "interesting idea... devious, even!" in
and you found it an "Interesting idea" in
and I also agreed in

but somehow it didn't make it...

Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2004 06:19:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:48 UTC