- From: Axel Polleres <axel@polleres.net>
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:55:23 +0100
- To: "Gray, Alasdair J G" <A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk>
- Cc: "public-rsp@w3.org" <public-rsp@w3.org>
FWIW, On Nov 22, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "Gray, Alasdair J G" <A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk> wrote: > I completely agree with this. Indeed we should see if we can just repurpose the existing stream definitions for use in the group. > >> What RDF gives you is a general framework and a nice general data model, e.g., a graph which changes its shape and constituting data over time and RDF as a nice formalism to capture this. > > This is a really interesting point. In the relational model, a tuple carries a certain amount of information which is more than can be captured in a single triple. My question is, should a timestamp be applied at a triple level – with several triples purporting to the same event being given different timestamps – or to a graph – where all triples about an event are captured together? I agree that this is a crucial point: In the context of RDF and it's inherent idea to be able to model incomplete data, it is not entirely clear as in relational data when a complete object or tuple has arrived over a stream (which may be viewed as an event per se). I guess this is what makes it difficult to make assumptions about (or even define) things like window sizes, etc. in streamed RDF. best, Axel -- Prof. Dr. Axel Polleres Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna url: http://www.polleres.net/ twitter: @AxelPolleres
Received on Friday, 22 November 2013 11:55:54 UTC