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

Re: Reification - whats best practice?

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:37:21 -0400
Message-Id: <200408251637.i7PGbLAQ030992@roke.hawke.org>
To: Bob MacGregor <macgregor@isi.edu>
cc: Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>, "'RDF interesting groupe'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>


> 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.

        -- sandro
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2004 16:33:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:57 UTC