W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Three solution designs to the first three Graphs use cases

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:00:37 +0000
Message-ID: <4F292965.3030003@epimorphics.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org

On 01/02/12 00:23, Sandro Hawke wrote:

>> If we had a critical mass of systems that worked this way I would be enthusiastic about it, but we don't.
> I think it's possible to implement graph literals (like in N3, or my
> third proposed solution) using a quad store, like the ones you already
> use.  That's how at least one version of cwm did it.   The technique is
> to map it to TriG/SameAs with minted identifiers:
> So, to represent:
>    <s>  <p>  {<a>  <b>  <c>  }
> you mint an identifier (<g1>  ) then store these quads:
>    <s>  <p>  <g1>  DEFAULT
>    <a>  <b>  <c>  <g1>
> In this proposal, such a use of quads is a purely internal decision of
> the implementer -- what's standard for interchange is the N3-like syntax
> with the graph literals.  It's just those documents are stored for easy
> access/manipulation in quads using a SameAs relation.  Elsewhere, people
> remain free to use quads, internally, however they want.
> Wouldn't that solve the implementation burden?

"Possible to implement" isn't the point.

Companies are already building around RDF and quads.  They aren't going 
to mess their customers around for the sake of graph literals.  It's 
part of the (technical) sales vocabulary already.

Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2012 12:01:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:03 UTC