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

hmm, I could do w/out this reference to...

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:07:25 -0400
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20041014130725.GA10093@monkeyfist.com>

"Principles of Boundaries in the Semantic Web" in the SPARQL QL
doc... I suspect Andy or Eric threw this in to talk about the
transfer-bnode problem, but, really, it's got other stuff that's
essentially contested and totally non-authoritative:

   We have the opinion that a Semantic Web server does not have
   "models" or you query by "passing a model uri". That is not
   feasible in a world that goes towards a global triplespace. So what
   we do instead is have one big virtual model that is inside build
   out of many different models that contain data.

I could not agree *less*. That is one feasible way to conceive such a
thing (though, frankly, a "Semantic Web server" is just too vague to
be useful), but it's by no means the only such way, nor is it a
particularly compelling way.

The Web clearly allows us to expose different kinds of resources, some
of which are RDF graphs (aka 'models', but I've been threatened about
using that term before), others of which are services. One relevant
kind of service is one which handles RDF queries. I find 'passing a
model URI' to be a perfectly sane thing to do.

More to the point, I have no idea what a "global triple store" is, nor
do I particularly think we're moving the world toward having one.

Just my 2 cents.

Kendall Clark
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2004 13:10:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:45 UTC