- From: Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>
- Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 20:47:51 +0200
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- CC: Karsten Otto <otto@math.fu-berlin.de>, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
>We thought of that. But slipping in such a huge change to RDF >in an existing syntax wasn't where we ended up. > >I noticed that Named Graphs extends RDF in at least two ways: >1) RDF triple subjects can be literals >2) RDF triples are quads (sic) > >so it's really Named non-RDF Graphs. > >For reference, RDF triples are defined at > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#dfn-rdf-triple >starting "An RDF triple contains three components:" > > and why can't we change this? reification syntax is "not practical" as we see above in the thread. So why can't we change the RDF spec and add a quad spec, together with a RDF/XML and N-3 serialization. who wants this, too? Leo
Received on Sunday, 29 August 2004 18:48:01 UTC