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

Re: Upcoming wave of quad/namedgraph implementations ,was: Reification - whats best practice?

From: Dave Beckett <Dave.Beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:52:00 +0100
To: "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>
CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <m3eklauysf.fsf@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:14:47 +0200, "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de> said:
> Hi all,

> it really looks like this reification discussion make some
> people sit down and work :-)

> We will see a wave of quad/namedgraph-based implementations
> being released in the next weeks. Up to my knowledge, the
> following people are currently working on implementations:

> Anybody else?

Continuing the "Me Too" thread...  Redland's had support for
this kind of thing using Redland Contexts[1] for two years.
But no quads.  That would be not-RDF.

One issue I see is that Named Graphs as currently defined by only
allow URIs whereas several of the context and provenance proposals
use or allow blank nodes - several have been given in earlier

In our work for the W3C RDF Data Access Working Group (DAWG), it
would be good to know whether URIs alone are sufficient, or if as we
suspect, many people want graphs named with blank nodes such as for
triples from inference.  I thought there were problems with the
scoping of blank-node named graphs, somewhere in one of the named
graph papers.

If you want to send feedback to the DAWG, see
and use the reply mail.  Use cases with real data, queries and
expected results would be most excellent!


[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/large_scale_demo/
Received on Friday, 10 September 2004 11:52:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:53 UTC