Re: RDFSync 0.1

> 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