You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
If support for "bare" triple terms (#50) is added, it could be valuable to also support triple annotations, akin to the Turtle 1.2 annotation syntax.
While the old reification design is close to that (using rdf:ID on the predicate element), that only generates rdf:Statement tokens, and can only generate fragment identifiers unique to the element (which of course is appropriate for that token in the current document). While these tokens mayconceptually be reifiers, that is only an indirect relation, and only for one specific annotation use case.
We could define the attribute rdf:annotation to annotate similarly:
If support for "bare" triple terms (#50) is added, it could be valuable to also support triple annotations, akin to the Turtle 1.2 annotation syntax.
While the old reification design is close to that (using
rdf:ID
on the predicate element), that only generates rdf:Statement tokens, and can only generate fragment identifiers unique to the element (which of course is appropriate for that token in the current document). While these tokens may conceptually be reifiers, that is only an indirect relation, and only for one specific annotation use case.We could define the attribute
rdf:annotation
to annotate similarly:That would be equivalent to:
For reifiers named by blank nodes,
rdf:annotationNodeID
could be similarly defined. Changing the relevants part in RDF/XML:would make it equivalent to:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: