W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-prov@w3.org > October 2011

Re: complete graphs

From: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:15:45 +0200
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Ian Davis <Ian.Davis@talis.com>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, public-rdf-prov@w3.org, Peter Buneman <opb@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <8639f7h6cu.fsf@river.styx.org>
>>>>> "cygri" == Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> writes:

    >> What if we *did* have names for assertions? We could construct
    >> graphs (collections of assertions) using these names... If we
    >> interpreted the fourth column in this way, what would happen?

    cygri> There was a looong conversation between me an Bob Ferris on
    cygri> public-rdf-comments about exactly this question, starting
    cygri> here:

Richard, thanks for pointing out that thread, I had missed it.

My reading of it is that either will work.

The statement id approach might be cleaner since it doesn't rely on a
slightly kludgy indirection (thing vs. the thing in that bucket) and a
not quite easily enforceable requirement that the graph size actually is
1 (possibly meaning extra work for the programmer if we just use
graphs).

On the other hand it is more radical since it introduces a new concept
and forces a bit of reimagining of how collections of assertions or
graphs are treated. Pragmatic conservatism might weigh in favour of the
graph approach then.

I'm undecided...

-w

-- 
William Waites                <mailto:ww@styx.org>
http://river.styx.org/ww/        <sip:ww@styx.org>
F4B3 39BF E775 CF42 0BAB  3DF0 BE40 A6DF B06F FD45
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2011 14:16:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 5 October 2011 14:16:18 GMT