Re: canonical RDF graph representations

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: canonical RDF graph representations
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 07:47:12 -0600

> On 1 March 2011 14:37, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
> <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>> This thrust for a canonical serialization puzzles me.  What problem
>> would a canonical serialization solve?
> 
> Off the top of my head:
> 
> 1. SIgning RDF
> 2. Signing Named Graphs
> 3. Signing Triples

Why not sign *some* serialization of the graph(s)/triples?

> 4. Fast Comparisons

This would at best only provide a one-sided test, unless everyone
uses the canonical serialization.

> 5. Synchronization

How does a canonical syntax aid in synchronization of RDF?

> From the paper:
> 
> Hash digests have been used extensively for file comparison, for
> example in [1], 
> where it is used for avoiding the duplicate storage of identical
> files, and in backup
> systems.

Sure, but why not just hash the graph itself?  

peter

Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 14:04:27 UTC