- From: McBride, Brian <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 11:39:47 +0100
- To: "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@dial.pipex.com>, "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> >But that compact representation does not extend to the model. As I >understand it, there is no 'aboutEach' node or property in the graph. > There is another line of argument about that, but for now lets stick then with the syntax as in the example I provided, i.e. using production 6.12. >> >>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. > I'd argue that we have established: o the syntax I outlined in my previous message gives a representation as compact as one would get with the digest approach o the processing required is not significantly different to the digest approach Brian >#g > >------------ >Graham Klyne >(GK@ACM.ORG) >
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2000 06:39:55 UTC