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

Re: (A PRIORITY) Exchanging the contents of RDF stores

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 15:27:15 +0000
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <84F34C43-586E-495D-B1FC-CBD70379BAB3@garlik.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
On 2012-02-01, at 19:10, Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:30 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC#.28A_PRIORITY.29_Exchanging_the_contents_of_RDF_stores
>> One of our prioritised UC is "Exchanging the contents of RDF stores".
>> I'd like to prose that TriG, without additional semantic or annotation assumptions, meets this UC.  The WG should resolve to cover this usage pattern.
>> This codifies the situation where no annotations of the graph tagging relationship exists.
>> It implies that quads are not an internal implementation matter but a way systems can exchange data.
> I would submit that in this case, the semantics does need to be specified with more precision than it is at present. So I strongly resist this proposal as stated, with the inclusion of the phrase "without additional semantic ... assumptions". With that phrase removed, I would support it.

I don't understand.

TriG is used for this purpose now, for exchanging data between SPARQL stores, as far as I'm aware the transfer is lossless - the situation with bNodes makes that hard to asses however.

- Steve

Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 0535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2012 15:27:46 UTC

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