W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > January 2012

Re: Three solution designs to the first three Graphs use cases

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:05:10 +0100
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <F1FCAF6F-CC34-4A22-AB50-A6732430D7C5@w3.org>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Ok. I understand my conviction (as in 'I am not convinced it is such a huge jump') was erroneous, so I stand corrected:-)

I still believe it merits a discussion and a well documented reasoning why we do not go down that route if we decide not to do so.



On Jan 27, 2012, at 13:27 , Steve Harris wrote:

> On 2012-01-27, at 10:35, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> On Jan 27, 2012, at 10:33 , Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>> On 27/01/12 03:45, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 11:09 +0000, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>>> On 04/01/12 19:23, David Wood wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks, Sandro.  That's very helpful.
>>>>>> It might be useful to consider augmenting TriG syntax to support your third solution (explicitly naming relations). I'd be quite happy with that.
>>>>> What would the data model be?
>>>> I think: an RDF graph which can have other RDF graphs as values of its
>>>> triples.  All these graphs would be subgraphs of some greater graph, so
>>>> they can share b-nodes.
>>>> (This is what cwm has had implemented since 2001, I think.)
>>> I thought this WG wasn't going there (graph literals).
>>> Personally, I see graph literals as the clean answer but it is RDF 2 (+).  RDF 1.1 is, to me, incremental improvements within the current abstract data model.  Datatyped literals  (e.g. "<s> <p> <o>"^^rdf:graphNTriples) are unwieldy and might block doing graph literals properly in RDF 2+.
>> I am not convinced it is such a huge jump and, if this is the only way to have a clean way forward, we may have to do this. The datatyped literals may be a way forward and, after all, the trig version of using '{' may be considered as a syntactic sugar for a datatyped literal…
> This makes me /extremely/ nervous.
> From the perspective of the indexing/query engine is an enormous difference, and I'm not aware of any commonly used systems that currently follow this model. So, there's a lack of experience in the community of how to deal with these structures efficiently.
> I bought this kind of argument with RDF Lists (collections), and accessor functions - storing the lists natively, and also reflecting them into triples. Coming up with an implementation that was both correct and efficient turned out to be so hard that we gave up, and just elected not to use Lists in production.
> If we had a critical mass of systems that worked this way I would be enthusiastic about it, but we don't.
> - Steve
> -- 
> Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
> 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
> +44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
> Registered in England and Wales 0535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
> Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Saturday, 28 January 2012 10:03:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:11 UTC