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

trusting quads

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 15:02:43 -0400
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <1336590163.2368.53.camel@waldron>
On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 11:26 -0700, Steve Harris wrote:
> 
> Right. The whole reason quads were implemented was to be able to track
> what *triples* appears in what documents (typically found on the web,
> but file: is good too). 

Speak for yourself, please, Steve.   I've seen several implementations
of quads that were used for other purposes and it's quite possible they
predated yours.  In general, I think the motivation for quads/datasets
is to work with a bunch of triples at the same time, in one system,
while still keeping them in distinct groupings, so they can have their
own metadata, source information, dependency tracking, etc.

> If you allow/encourage web documents to circumvent this, then you
> break that. 

I don't understand how you handle a triple at arms length, without
taking it as gospel, but you can't do that with a quad.

If you get a triple you want to store, but not trust, you put it off in
a separate space (aka a named graph), where you wont accidentally query
it when you're querying the stuff you trust.

If you get a quad you want to store, but not trust, you do a little
rewrite of the names, so you wont accidentally query it when you're
querying the stuff you trust.

In any case, people *are* going to be publishing quads.  What are you
going to do about that?   Any why can't you apply that technique to any
situation where someone is publishing something that might be triples or
might be quads?

   -- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 19:02:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:48 GMT