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

RE: Reification - whats best practice?

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:02:14 +0300
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A50ADC9A@trebe051.ntc.nokia.com>
To: <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>, <leo@gnowsis.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <danbri@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of ext Eric Jain
> Sent: 30 August, 2004 09:40
> To: Leo Sauermann
> Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org; danbri@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Reification - whats best practice?
> 
> 
> 
> ... many tools group statements in some way, 
> usually for 
> management purposes, and some even allow meta data to be attached to 
> these groups, graphs, models, or whatever they are called.
> 
> The problem, in my opinion, is that the standard way to exchange this 
> kind of data requires writing every group of statements into 
> a separate 
> file, which may not always be practical.
> 
> This is not necessarily a problem with the RDF data model, 

Agreed.

> but a problem 
> with the serialization syntax, and one of many issues a 
> future version 
> will hopefully address.

And until the official, "blessed" RDF serialization does, folks
needing to interchange multiple sets (graphs) of statements in
a single serialized document can use TriX [1]  

 ;-)

Patrick

[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/03/trix/


--

Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
patrick.stickler@nokia.com
 
Received on Monday, 30 August 2004 07:03:28 UTC

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