- From: <samwald@gmx.at>
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 18:39:32 +0200
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk
- Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch
> I really would suggest the named graphs would be a better > underpinning. Unlike reification, they do have a full semantics and a > clear deployment model, and they follow in a long tradition of naming > document-like semantic entities. And unlike RDF reification, they are > not widely loathed, and they are fairly widely supported. Well, they are not supported by RDF/XML, which (unfortunately) is the main serialization format of RDF. Named graphs ARE supported by most triplestores, but they are mostly already reserved for other uses, like the representation of provenance based on the RDF files that the triples were loaded from. I think we are also lacking a standard vocabulary for graph - subgraph relations, which would be needed if we want to represent graphs within graphs. -- Matthias . -- Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kanns mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2007 16:39:48 UTC