- 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>
>>>>> "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 UTC