- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:22:00 +0000
- To: www-rdf-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
>>>Seth Russell said: > I think any discussion of a common API should begin with a clear (almost > mathematical) understanding of what interoperable means. Doesn't > interoperable > imply the following? > > Two RDF APIs are considered interoperable whenever: > 1) System A writes statements in RDF > 2) System B reads the statements from (1) and stores them in triples > 3) System B writes the resultant triples from (1) back out in RDF > 4) System A reads the statements from (3) > 5) The triples in system A remain the same. I see some requirements from this list by itself where A and B are separate real systems, rather than separate concepts * Between 1),2) and 3),4) you need a non-lossy triple encoding that handles such things as anonymous statements, aboutEach, aboutEachprefix rubbish * That requires some agreement on how serialising anonymous resources is done, so that the genid:, var: things you see in the naive triple dumps can be interpreted. * What is a statement? What happens if it is a reified statement? Or both are present? Discuss! i.e. there is more work to do on the model and/or on conventions for serialised models before interchanging without loosing things is possible. > [snip] Dave
Received on Saturday, 11 November 2000 15:22:06 UTC