Hi Pat, On May 29, 2007, at 1954, Pat Hayes wrote: > <snip> > However, I am at a loss to understand how you refer to these > 150,000 graphs if you have no way to name them. How do you even > know how many you have? Each of the graphs consists of triples extracted from a different document. The document might be identified by a file name, or a message ID, a documentum identifier, or whatever. The quads for that document share a common context argument; a blank node. The same blank node appears in subject position to record provenance assertions about the graph (which document, which extractor used, time of extraction, etc). > (It sounds from your description that you are in effect treating > the provenance as *being* the name of the graph. Does that > perspective help reconcile things? You still seem to feel a need to name each graph. Rows in a relational table don't have names and are still identifiable. The same goes for graphs; names are unnecessary, and not particularly useful. >> > There has to be some way for the query to refer to them. If you can > think of way of doing this without somehow naming them, please > explain it. Hopefully, I just have. > > <snip> > OK. Do you always query against the same set of unnamed graphs? Yes in the short term. New graphs are introduced on a continuing basis. > If so, you can treat this as a single graph for purposes of > defining a SPARQL query answer. Its a single graph if we ignore provenance, but not if we take provenance into account when we query. Cheers, Bob
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 07:00:34 UTC