- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:54:32 -0400
- To: William Waites <ww-keyword-okfn.193365@styx.org>
- cc: Chris Beer <chris@e-beer.net.au>, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>, Cory Casanave <cory-c@modeldriven.com>, "public-egov-ig@w3.org" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
> I am concerned with versioned updates to these stores. The only
> vocabulary for expressing changesets that I am aware of is the talis one
> which makes use of reification, e.g.:
...
> This is not to say that that anything in RDF requires this behaviour or
> that implementations have a concept of graph or default graph that works
> this way. But right now it is impossible to make a system like this
> without an ad-hoc definition of a xyz:graph predicate and it feels like
> such a predicate is close enough to the core that it should be defined
> somewhere standard.
I think changesets and quads are largely different issues, although they
do touch on each other.
Re changesets: there was a very nice informal breakout session yesterday
at WWW2010 on "Dataset Dyanmics" which I think covers this subject. It
looks like there's a lot of energy in the community to do some more work
in this space. See http://esw.w3.org/DatasetDynamics/Meetings (There
were actually about 25 participants, not just the 6 of us currently
listed on that page.)
Re quads / named graphs: that's very much in scope for the RDF Next
Steps Workshop in two months, and I expect we'll see some standards work
on that pretty soon.
-- Sandro
Received on Friday, 30 April 2010 12:54:35 UTC