- From: Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:56:16 -0700
- To: Frank Carvalho <dko4342@vip.cybercity.dk>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
> What do you mean when you say "tree serialization", BTW? The only
> serialization I work with
> is a large set of triples.
(I see from other email that you already normalize your data, but I
already had this written.)
There are multiple possible serializations in RDF/XML of an RDF
graph. (In fact, some RDF graphs can't be serialized in RDF/XML.)
For example, the triples
ex:foo ex:bar "baz" .
ex:foo rdf:type ex:Thing.
can be serialized as
<RDF xmlns:ex="http://ex/" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-
syntax-ns#">
<ex:Thing resource="http://ex/foo" ex:bar="baz"/>
</RDF>
or as
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://ex/foo">
<ex:bar>baz</ex:bar>
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://ex/Thing"/>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
... or in a few other ways.
Now, what XSLT will you use to get the type of ex:foo, or the value
of ex:bar?
Using XML tools on RDF/XML will require you to either normalize your
representation, or write convoluted queries to handle RDF/XML's many
possible appearances. If you're normalizing down into triple-level
chunks, why not use a real triple store?
>> cwm is not really designed for large-scale storage.
>
> No, I kind of suspected that from it's behaviour. It's really a
> shame. It
> was descibed as a sort of RDF swiss army knife, and on small graphs
> it seems
> to be able to merge graphs nicely. But when I started to load large
> graphs,
> it came up with odd errors.
Yup, Swiss Army knife, not chainsaw :D
-R
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2007 22:56:28 UTC