Re: Reification and Provenance modelling

Hi Richard,

On 09/15/2011 05:12 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
> On 15 Sep 2011, at 12:41, Bob Ferris wrote:
>> I have the feeling that the existing proposals are not really getting the point (at least from my point view, e.g., I don't like graph literals at all).
>
> What exactly are the existing proposals not getting? And is there any particular reason why you don't like graph literals?

The proposal in the RDF Datasets proposal document [1] lacks the ability 
to elegantly deal with one-triple-graphs. Single statements should make 
use of statement identifier instead.

The RDF Quadless proposal [2] looks a bit cumbersome and I think that 
its drawbacks already mentioned in the related thread [3] of the RDF WG 
mailing list. The simple graph literals proposal [4] looks a bit more 
elegant, however, these graphs have still no identifier (from my POV).

All these proposals cannot deal with the "Slicing datasets according to 
multiple dimensions" [5].

The goal should be to develop a representation that do not require much 
additions to the existing triple-based model, i.e., (from my POV) adding 
an optional fourth element that represents a statement identifier. To 
preserve the triple-based nature of RDF we should develop a graph 
vocabulary that describes a graph, e.g., which statements are included etc.

This modelling has the following advantages (at least):
- graphs can be indexed separately in triple stores
- statements can be utilised in multiple graphs
- provenance for statements and graphs can be handled in a unified way.

Cheers,


Bo


[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/RDF-Datasets-Proposal
[2] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/RDF-Quadless-Proposal
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Aug/0105.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/2009/07/NamedGraph.html
[5] 
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC#Slicing_datasets_according_to_multiple_dimensions

Received on Thursday, 15 September 2011 15:47:26 UTC