- From: Graham Klyne <GK@dial.pipex.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 22:38:24 +0100
- To: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 12:47 PM 5/29/00 +0100, McBride, Brian wrote: >I must appologise for the diagram not being clear. The intent was to show >the whole statement being the subject of the 'asserted by' property which >would, I think, be consistent with the RDF model. Ah, OK. Consistent if the statement is reified. >That seems simple and clear enough and not too hard to explain. As you >pointed out, there is a more compact representation using BagID and >aboutEach. But that compact representation does not extend to the model. As I understand it, there is no 'aboutEach' node or property in the graph. > >(1) as they teach on "management communication" courses and the like, > >"perception is everything". If poor perception stops developers from > >adopting RDF in all its potential, then the damage is done. > >(See Andrea > >Chiodi's recent message to this list for an example of this effect.) > > > >I'd agree with that. I'm wondering whether a new mechanism is needed that >is intrinsically easier to explain, or a way to explain reification in RDF >which raises fewer objections. Well, that would be a useful step. > >(2) the perception becomes reality when one has to communicate > >the reified > >information between applications. There are real costs of > >bandwidth and > >protocol processing complexity that get incurred here. > > > >Yup. Do you feel that the digest approach brings significant advantage? Sergey pointed out that his similar approach reduces the RDF statement triple overhead from 400% to 100%. Your mileage may vary: this may not be an exact measure of the overhead but it seems a reasonable estimate. I'd quite like to lose the 100%, but that may be hoping for too much. #g ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2000 03:08:09 UTC