Re: Exchange of Named RDF Graphs

Hi,

On Wednesday 05 January 2005 11:14, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
> I cant get rid of the feeling that named graphs are just, a bad idea?
I couldn't live without them...

Not to say that named graphs solve all problems, or even a lot of problems, 
but they can be quite handy when working with graphs from different sources.

> considering statements inside "files which have a name"  seems a naive
> way to make nothing else than a "bag of reifications" that is a way to
> assign a URI (the name of the graph) to a bunch of statements. Given
> that bag of statements can already be done with the existing specs, this
> is already a reason to drop the idea.. 
You're right, but as I wrote --- and Eric also pointed out, practical issues 
weigh in.

> but there is more. It is clear
> that statements by nature need overlapping bagging.. that is you might
> want to put certain statements in a certain bag given their order or
> arrival, their author, their inferred trust level or whatever. With
> named graphs this .. is just, ops, not possible unless of course you
> want to copy the statements in different bags. Again with existing
> reifications + rdf bags this is already possibile..
True, as I said, it doesn't solve all problems.

> .. and please let us consider past gone the arguments "its too many
> triples". It should be well understood by now the difference between
> model theory and practical implementations which are well free to make
> reifications in the most efficent way they want (e.g. quadruples)
Fine, but then don't argue against a practical implementation! :-)


Regards,
Morten