W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > May 2000

RE: lightweight reification (was Representing trust (and other co ntex t) in RDF)

From: McBride, Brian <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 11:39:47 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F23924B@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:43 GMT