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

Re: I guess it's a stupid questions.

From: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:42:37 +0100
Message-ID: <41986BFD.7030607@isb-sib.ch>
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Danny Ayers wrote:
> I've often had doubts, but haven't yet really encountered any
> situation for which the lack of RDF contexts/quads has been a killer.

Here is my use case:

We have a lot of documents each of which consists of several hundred 
statements. Every document has some metadata such as when it was last 
revised. This information can easily be indicated when such a document 
is stored in a single file, using rdf:about="". The other solution of 
course would be to reify all statements, which is definitely not 
practical (which is not to say that reification isn't useful for making 
assertions about individual statements).

The important point is that I can no longer make use of this metadata 
after loading the data into an RDF database (e.g. retrieve a set of 
statements or search only statements that are available under a license 
that allows non-commercial use), unless the database supports some kind 
of context.

I would be quite surprised if I were the only person on this planet with 
this problem...


> context can be done in a way that is RDF-friendly and useful without
> needing quads though - check the good Mr. Beckett's approach in
> Redland:

For all I can tell he *is*, in principal, using quads, isn't he?

   graph.add(triple, identifier)
Received on Monday, 15 November 2004 08:42:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:56 UTC