W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2004

Re: Ideas for store for IFP smushing

From: Morten Frederiksen <mof-rdf@mfd-consult.dk>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 19:59:53 +0200
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200408151959.53379.mof-rdf@mfd-consult.dk>

Hi Patrick et al,

On Tuesday 10 August 2004 08:21, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> Note that the definition of a URIQA concise bounded resource description
> has been refined to be bounded by IFPs, to avoid "FOAF bloat" where
> simple anonymous node closure produces an overly large description.
> (c.f. http://swdev.nokia.com/uriqa/URIQA.html#cbd  for the draft revision)
Great move!

However, when I tried to implement this, I ran into a question: What should 
happen when the object of a statement with an IFP is a bnode?
Step 2 says to stop recursing, but the informal result description suggests 
otherwise. I can think of at least one example where it seems reasonable to 
continue the recursion:
If foaf:holdsAccount, which relates a person to an OnlineAccount of some sort, 
were to be defined as an IFP, the OnlineAccount description is necessary, as 
the OnlineAccount is identified (in theory only so far) by the combination of 
its accountServiceHomepage and accountName.
In short, while it may not be a common case, I think the recursion should 
continue with the object if it's a bnode.
Also, in my implemention I am adding a flag for including rdfs:label 
statements as well, since I suspect that human readable labels will often be 
handy, even if all other non-identifying properties are left out.

BTW, with regards to the reification step, it's not clear to me if it is only 
existing reifications that should be included, or if all statements obtained 
through step 2 should be reified and included as well (including their CBDs)?

Morten Frederiksen
Received on Sunday, 15 August 2004 18:01:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:52 UTC