- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 10:24:18 -0500
- To: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 10:10, Steve Harris wrote: > On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 09:49:41AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > > On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 09:40, Steve Harris wrote: > > > I agree with these points wholeheartedly, but I have concern over the > > > difficulty and scalability issues of implementing anything to handle RDF > > > collections. Are there any large-ish RDF stores that handle these > > > intelligently or as a special case? > > > > cwm has a list:in built-in; i.e. it supports queries over > > a virtual graph that has list:in triples inferred. > > It's no speed daemon, though. > > This is the kind of solution I was worried about, a list of lenght N needs > N*(N+1) / 2 inferred triples, Only if you're forward-chaining. Euler would only infer the ones it needs, I think. Anyway... I'm not arguing strongly in favor of adding special support for collections. I just think it merits a place in our issues list. Folks who wonder "why doesn't the new-fangled DAWG-BARKING-QL from W3C support collections explicitly?" should get an explicit answer if they go poring thru the WG's records. > which quickly becomes unmanageable, eg. > MusicBrainz has containers with several thousand members. Admittedly thier > not collections, so the problem is not as bad, but its a reasonable > thing to want to store in a collection. > > - Steve -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2004 11:24:31 UTC