- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 14:06:45 +0100
- To: "Kirkham, Pete (UK)" <pete.kirkham@baesystems.com>
- Cc: danny666@virgilio.it, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Kirkham, Pete (UK) wrote: > >>Does the following look a feasible way of using the two together: >><r1:date> >> <xxx:transform rdf:resource="http://example.org/r2-to-r1.xsl" /> >> <rdf:value>4th June 2004</rdf:value> >></r1:date> > > > I was under the impression that RDF semantic extensions have to be monotonic, and that a graph entails all its subgraphs. > Nothing non-mon there I see. Three triples _:a rdf:type r1:date . _:a xxx:transform eg:r2-to-r1.xsl . _:a rdf:value "4th June 2004" . We might expect xxx:transform to have semantics along the lines of "the object of this statement is an XSLT transform that when applied to the subject serialized in such-and-such a way gives additional triples that are also true." This could constitute a semantic extension to RDF as defined in RDF Semantics. Given this the three triples are monotonic in that if we delete any of them the result still holds. === The hardest bit I see is the "such-and-such": I think TriX would make it easier. RDF/XML has too much variability. FWIW I agree with Damian that it might be better to hang this off a class. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 4 June 2004 09:10:33 UTC