- From: Nuutti Kotivuori <naked@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:08:52 +0300
- To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, public-sparql-dev@w3.org
Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: > I don't agree. What's the source of this assertion? I think the > core issue here is that there is *no* concensus formalism for named > graphs WRT RDF, yet SPARQL is dependent on an RDF model that > supports named graphs. If there is one, please point me to it, > because I ran across the same problem when constructing programming > APIs for named graphs. The only formalism I know of is Graham Kyle, > John McCarthy's work [1]. Well, one thing which would help me in this is a survey of the approaches other people have taken when doing these things. I think I know the situation with Redland librdf, when I read the code last, but I'm not sure if I'm correct. I think that in librdf, there are statements explicitly without a context. In SPARQL queries, the default graph is the merge of all statements in the store, with or without a context. Queries which explicitly match the graph in a variable never match statements without a context. And so there is no easy way to match all the statements without a context only. I'd like to know atleast how rdflib and Jena (with whatever extensions that this requires) solve this issue. -- Naked
Received on Wednesday, 13 September 2006 15:09:00 UTC