Re: Sync'ing triplestores

Geoff Chappell wrote:

> Isn’t that problem? I suppose you could say that the system would be
> selective about when it gives the bnode's global vs. local name - e.g. using
> the local name for all client access except replication clients. But that's
> essentially requiring that all systems that want to participate in
> replication must modify their inner workings and handling of bnodes -- talk
> about being DOA in terms of deployment.
> 
> I suspect it's better to just bite the bullet and deal with identification
> of bnodes by description. There is always a description in a particular
> graph that is sufficient to identify a bnode in that graph (if there are
> multiple subgraphs that match the description then they're redundant info
> anway and can be merged). Maybe an approach like this would work:

"Reference by Description" as the TAP folks call it:

  http://tap.stanford.edu/tap/rbd.html

Not unrelated. Tim Bray recently described a feature of the Atom format 
(it makes all entries expose IDs). This is very useful, but I don't 
think the problem Tim is describing, seeing the same entry twice, is a bug:

  http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2005/04/03/Atom-Now

cheers
Bill