- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:17:34 +0100
- To: "Graham Klyne <gk" <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
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 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> } You mentioned that some time ago, and indeed, looking into http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2000/10/swap/notation3.py?rev=1.151&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup there's line 606 if str[j:j+2] ==":-": and line 1294 self._write(" :- {") but I can't find anything of that in http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2000/10/swap/notation3.html?rev=1.28&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup 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/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? I believe that Jonathan Borden proposed something like that in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0036.html and DanC found that an "interesting idea... devious, even!" in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0037.html and you found it an "Interesting idea" in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0038.html and I also agreed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0039.html but somehow it didn't make it... -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2004 06:20:04 UTC