W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2001

Re: N3 contexts vs RDF reification

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 08:13:13 -0700
Message-ID: <005401c0cf2c$95da5b80$b17ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "Lee Jonas" <lee.jonas@cakehouse.co.uk>, "RDF-IG" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Cc: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "Guha" <guha@alpiri.com>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
From: "Lee Jonas" <lee.jonas@cakehouse.co.uk>

> Although these all seem valid points, I think we are talking at
> cross-purposes here.  I am refering to the number of tuples generated by
an
> RDF parser, whereas you are refering to the number and size of records
> stored.  Both are valid concerns.

I agree.  Actually, in the external communications there ~should be no~
distinction,  this should be left to the choice of the implementor of a
internal data structure.

To help make my decision (which is now wavering to identifying the
statements) I made another mentograph to rebut Murray Altheim assertion that
"There's no way torepresent the variability of one's relationship to the
lily".  You can see from digram [1] that there is not a whole lot of
difference between the different tuple formats proposed.

[1] http://robustai.net/mentography/TheLilyDone2Ways.gif

> Yes, this is the crux, see my summary at the end of this mail.

Thank you for that excellant summary.

Seth
Received on Friday, 27 April 2001 11:17:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:49 GMT