> The right solution is to use contexts. Contexts can be implemented > using quads instead of triples, or by using a scheme for > encapsulating groups of statements, as is done in the Triple system. > The DAWG committee is taking baby steps towards contexts by > including a SOURCE element in BRQL. If you substitute the term > "context" for "source" in a BRQL query, then you have quads. Some > of us are planning to "abuse" BRQL by treating the sources as if > they are contexts. I would not be surprised if members of the DAWG > committee have that in mind (but I can't speak for them). > > At some point in the future, quad stores are likely to become > commonplace--there are a few already. While I'm fond of quad stores (eg in cwm and SWI prolog) and agree they're generally the way to go -- how do you propose exchanging quad-store data? My store knows that source x said {a b c}, but how do I publish that fact? It seems to me that some reificiation vocabulary is useful for this, although I'd recommend that stores de-reify when possible and store as quads, for the performance reasons you cite. Of course a serialization with quoting (like N3's {...}) makes it a lot more readable. -- sandroReceived on Wednesday, 25 August 2004 16:33:33 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:08 GMT