- From: Giovanni Tummarello <g.tummarello@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 16:38:01 +0100
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3.org, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <knobot@gmail.com>
> Given that Reto's been working in the same general area with diff, > patch and leanify [1], maybe you could coordinate on test sets - help > keep the competition friendly ;-) > Yup :-) we're in touch and we're using Reto tools as validation (mentioned in the paper). Now if i just had some fund to sponsor a neto trip here it would be fun! Ideas anyone on raising funds for semantic web projects? :-) > One of his big targets is RDF version control (how best to *implement* > provenance & temporal labelling). This must also be in general scope > for your algorithms/tools. Has your previous digital-signing work > suggested any good strategies for managing the names/labels/signatures > of MSGs (/molecules/CBDs)? What kind of granularity seems appropriate > for practical version rollback? > version rollback based on the list of MSGs seem very feasable and efficent. Just think 16 bytes per MSG. to describe the graph.. then a new version patch is simply a list of new MSGs added and a list of those removed. The list of those removed is just 16 bytes each. those added is just a RDF/XML . Seems feasable? Its a good idea for an addition to the paper about this that we're tentatively planning for ISWC. > Concise Bounded Resource Descriptions [4], still not had chance. I'm > still confused over the similarities/differences and circumstances for > which each would be better. Has anyone by any chance done a short > compare and contast? > They are somehow similar but MSGs have nice theoretical properties such as non overlapping, identical decomposition no matter which triple you start decomposing from etc.. which are very useful for digital signatures, context in general (as we use in DBin) or , in fact, things like RDFSync or versioning. Ciao ciao Giovanni
Received on Wednesday, 22 March 2006 15:38:44 UTC