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

Re: Reification - whats best practice?

From: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:38:49 +0200
Message-ID: <412DA199.2050108@isb-sib.ch>
To: Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>
CC: "'RDF interesting groupe'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

Leo Sauermann wrote:
> My email was about RDF/XML as storage space. No statement table.

Sorry then, I may have misunderstood you. The largest inefficiencies 
that I have encountered so far are with tools that need to expand a 
single statement into four triples in order to be able to state anything 
about the statement. As I pointed out, this issue can and has been 
solved by some tools.

But your problem, if I understand you correctly now, is that you need to 
provide information on large sets of statements. This is my problem as 
well :-) However, I consider it a separate issue.

One partial solution is to put statements with common metadata into a 
single file, and then say:

   <rdf:Description rdf:about="">
     <dc:date>2004-06-08</dc:date>
     <cc:license 
rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/"/>
   </rdf:Description>

Obviously this solution is not flexible enough for all cases.


> BTW Real life:
> 99% of all this Reification will be used to state things like:
> - When was this triple added to the store? (date)
> - By Whom ? (chown leo)
> - who has access rights (chmod 777) to it?

This is only handled in a more compact way by contexts if this 
information applies to fixed sets of statements. Correct me if I am wrong.

If you are familiar with scientific data, you may know that you need to 
provide references to literature to back just about anything you say. 
This is just one use case where provenance information is given at a 
very fine-grained level, and with a lot of overlapping.
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 08:38:35 UTC

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