Re: [rsp] Streaming with TriG?

I am in favour too and my streams are already in Trig.

Monika

Sent from my iPad

> On 21 Mar 2014, at 15:15, Emanuele Della Valle <emanuele.dellavalle@polimi.it> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mikko,
> 
> I’m in favour, actually I did experiment with it already :-)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Emanuele
> 
>> On 21 Mar 2014, at 14:11, Mikko Rinne <mikko.rinne@aalto.fi> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi, All!
>> 
>> TriG (http://www.w3.org/TR/trig/) reached W3C recommendation status in February. As it has the basic support for streaming named graphs, there have been some discussions in our team on whether we should take it into use. As I haven't seen any discussion on the list or in the RSP CG minutes on TriG, I was wondering whether there are already strong views for or against?
>> 
>> For those not familiar with TriG, it is " an extension of Turtle, extended to support representing a complete RDF Dataset". A couple of sample events could be represented in TriG like this:
>> 
>> -------------TriG-------------
>> 
>>  @prefix
>>  : <http:example.org/default#> .
>> @prefix
>>  ep: 
>> <http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/eventprocessing.owl#> .
>> @prefix
>>  geo:  <http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#> .
>> 
>>  :ev1
>>  { [] a ep:EventObject ;
>>              geo:Point
>>  [ geo:lat 60.158776 ; geo:long 24.881490 ; ] ;
>>              ep:hasEventObjectSamplingTime
>>  "2014-01-07T09:18:21"^^xsd:dateTime . }
>> 
>>  :ev2
>>  { [] a ep:EventObject ;
>>             geo:Point
>>  [ geo:lat 60.187458 ; geo:long 24.821272 ; ] ;
>>             ep:hasEventObjectSamplingTime
>>  "2014-01-07T09:42:00"^^xsd:dateTime . }
>> 
>>  :ev3
>>  { [] a ep:EventObject ;
>>             geo:Point
>>  [ geo:lat 60.187634 ; geo:long 24.821491 ; ] ;
>>             ep:hasEventObjectSamplingTime
>>  "2014-01-07T10:18:21"^^xsd:dateTime . }
>> 
>> -------------------------------
>> 
>> It is not terribly different from doing the same with SPARQL Update:
>> 
>> -----------SPARQL Update-------------
>> 
>>  PREFIX
>>  ep: 
>> <http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/eventprocessing.owl#> .
>> PREFIX
>>  geo:  <http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#> .
>> 
>>  INSERT
>>  DATA {
>> 
>>   GRAPH
>> <http:example.org/default#ev1> {
>>           []
>>  a ep:EventObject ;
>>              geo:Point
>>  [ geo:lat 60.158776 ; geo:long 24.881490 ; ] ;
>>              ep:hasEventObjectSamplingTime
>>  "2014-01-07T09:18:21"^^xsd:dateTime . }
>> 
>>   GRAPH
>> <http:example.org/default#ev2> {
>>          []
>>  a ep:EventObject ;
>>             geo:Point
>>  [ geo:lat 60.187458 ; geo:long 24.821272 ; ] ;
>>             ep:hasEventObjectSamplingTime
>>  "2014-01-07T09:42:00"^^xsd:dateTime . }
>> 
>>   GRAPH
>> <http:example.org/default#ev3> {
>>          []
>>  a ep:EventObject ;
>>             geo:Point
>>  [ geo:lat 60.187634 ; geo:long 24.821491 ; ] ;
>>             ep:hasEventObjectSamplingTime
>>  "2014-01-07T10:18:21"^^xsd:dateTime . }
>> 
>> }
>>  # end-of INSERT DATA
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -------------------------------
>> 
>> The nice thing about TriG is that it would be easier to synchronize in the middle of a stream (no "INSERT DATA" needed).
>> 
>> Encapsulating streaming objects into graphs has the benefit, as pointed out earlier by Axel, that the end of the object is explicitly marked.
>> 
>> What do you think?
>> 
>> Mikko
> 

Received on Friday, 21 March 2014 14:09:00 UTC