Dear Lars, On 10/23/2017 12:10 PM, Svensson, Lars wrote: >> It is up to implementers to optimize for small, one-triple and large graphs in >> their code. I think constructs like the "bundle" are good, but should fall under one >> generic construct. What is needed is a constraint mechanism on NamedGraphs, or >> however you may call it: As in the Bundle construct, we need to be able to define an >> entity class which instantiates as a named set of triples contraint to an RDF or OWL >> subschema. > Do you have any suggestion what that class might look like? My imagination fails me here. > Applications I have are, e.g., defining a class "atmospheric observation", which instantiates to a graph of facts that can be result of one atmospheric observation. Being that, it could only instantiate classes and properties specific to this. This could be expressed as a subset of a more general ontology, containing concepts such as pressure, wind, humidity, cloud formation, space-time, lightnings.., but not buildings, people etc. INSPIRE, e.g., uses an unconstraint reification construct to describe results of observations. Similarly, archaeologists and geologists describe stratigraphic relationships, that are observed at different times at multiple spots and then are consolidated to larger hypotheses about the mostly invisible part of the strata formations. So, we need a class "stratigraphic observation". Best, Martin
Received on Monday, 23 October 2017 12:08:55 UTC