- From: Stefan Kokkelink <skokkeli@mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:23:30 +0200
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: nejdl@kbs.uni-hannover.de, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
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. Regards, Stefan
Received on Friday, 31 August 2001 04:24:22 UTC