- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:33:30 +0100
- To: Tanel Tammet <tammet@staff.ttu.ee>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, info@oilit.com, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Petko Petkov <ppetkov@linuxmail.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
I've often had doubts, but haven't yet really encountered any situation for which the lack of RDF contexts/quads has been a killer. Having said that, I suspect named graphs could make life easier by providing a fairly intuitive but well-defined kind of contextuality: http://www.w3.org/2004/03/trix/ Inconvenience isn't really the core issue with reification, it just doesn't really do quite what's expected/wanted at the RDF level. But context can be done in a way that is RDF-friendly and useful without needing quads though - check the good Mr. Beckett's approach in Redland: http://librdf.org/notes/contexts.html Were XML docs the reason for their being no 'context'? Unlikely is my guess, I vaguely remember higher expectations of reification. Anyone happen to remember? I notice MCF had 'layers' which seems a similar idea: http://www.guha.com/mcf/mcf_spec.html Some related notes: A story about RDF and XML http://www.w3.org/2001/06/rdf-xproc/1 Why Is RDF The Way It Is? http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/200407/swintro/syntaxdesign.html Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Sunday, 14 November 2004 18:33:31 UTC