- From: McBride, Brian <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 11:39:47 +0100
- To: "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@dial.pipex.com>, "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
>
>But that compact representation does not extend to the model. As I
>understand it, there is no 'aboutEach' node or property in the graph.
>
There is another line of argument about that, but for now lets stick then
with the syntax as in the example I provided, i.e. using production 6.12.
>>
>>Yup. Do you feel that the digest approach brings significant
>advantage?
>
>Sergey pointed out that his similar approach reduces the RDF statement
>triple overhead from 400% to 100%. Your mileage may vary:
>this may not be
>an exact measure of the overhead but it seems a reasonable estimate.
>
>I'd quite like to lose the 100%, but that may be hoping for too much.
>
I'd argue that we have established:
o the syntax I outlined in my previous message gives a representation
as compact as one would get with the digest approach
o the processing required is not significantly different to the
digest approach
Brian
>#g
>
>------------
>Graham Klyne
>(GK@ACM.ORG)
>
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2000 06:39:55 UTC