- From: Carsten Keßler <carsten.kessler@uni-muenster.de>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:51:50 +0100
- To: public-lod@w3.org
- Cc: Chad Hendrix <hendrix@un.org>
Hi Bob, > At a first glance, your ontology looks very interesting and well designed. thanks, we are doing our best ;) > So there might be the (rather old) need for > statement identifiers, i.e., a URI (or maybe also a bnode) for identifying a > single triple and to be able to describe external context information. You > can find my proposal at the RDF WG comments mailing list, see [2]. Thanks for these pointers. These ideas all make sense, however, we are also concerned about the implications in practice, i.e., we have to make sure that whatever approach we pick is supported by triple stores. I do see that your proposal of having an identifier makes sense at a conceptual level, but in practice, does it matter if we end up with named graphs that may only contain a single triple in some cases? I don't think it does, but maybe I'm missing something. Carsten
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 16:52:23 UTC