W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: Some issues around RDF Collections and containers

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 10:24:18 -0500
To: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1091028258.314.841.camel@dirk>

On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 10:10, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 09:49:41AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 09:40, Steve Harris wrote:
> > > I agree with these points wholeheartedly, but I have concern over the
> > > difficulty and scalability issues of implementing anything to handle RDF
> > > collections. Are there any large-ish RDF stores that handle these
> > > intelligently or as a special case?
> > 
> > cwm has a list:in built-in; i.e. it supports queries over
> > a virtual graph that has list:in triples inferred.
> > It's no speed daemon, though.
> 
> This is the kind of solution I was worried about, a list of lenght N needs
> N*(N+1) / 2 inferred triples,

Only if you're forward-chaining. Euler would only infer the ones it
needs, I think.

Anyway... I'm not arguing strongly in favor of adding special support
for collections. I just think it merits a place in our issues list.
Folks who wonder "why doesn't the new-fangled DAWG-BARKING-QL from W3C
support collections explicitly?" should get an explicit answer if
they go poring thru the WG's records.

>  which quickly becomes unmanageable, eg.
> MusicBrainz has containers with several thousand members. Admittedly thier
> not collections, so the problem is not as bad, but its a reasonable
> thing to want to store in a collection.
> 
> - Steve 
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2004 11:24:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:20 GMT