Re: RDFCore Update

pat hayes wrote:
> ...
> >Why did you decide to define it for RDF graphs?
> ...
> RDF graphs and Ntriple documents are in 1:1 correspondence, modulo
> re-ordering of lines and renamings of anonymous node labels, so it is
> relatively trivial to map between them in any case; and it is also
> easy to map directly between graphs and (existential-conjunction)
> expressions in a linear logical notation, should you wish to do so.
> In fact, if one is willing to put up with the awkwardness of somehow
> distinguishing between 'free' and 'bound' anonymous nodes, the model
> theory could be applied directly to the n-triples syntax.

Although I completely agree on this (and on the decisions 
made by RDFCore regarding anonymous nodes and RDF graphs ) 
it should be noted that there is no 1:1 correspondence between 
XML serializations and RDF graphs (and hence Ntriple also).

I think there are two possible views on this.

1. Accept that not all RDF graphs have a XML serialization.
2. Define an RDF graph to be a 'valid' RDF graph if there 
   exist a XML serialization.


Received on Friday, 31 August 2001 04:24:22 UTC