- From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 20:12:26 -0000
- To: "Sergey Melnik" <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Cc: "RDF Interest Group" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > One other thing (I essentially agree with this btw). How would one > add a reified statement to a container (such as a jena/stanford > Model) without asserting it? Carry tables for assertions and > refications and indicate that a statement is present in reified > form but "not asserted here" (nah)? It's certainly simpler than > maintaining quads. [Sergey]: Actually, no special mechanism for that is necessary. In my opinion, having a reified statement in a model that is not used as subject or object of another statement is futile; this does not add any information. If a reified statement is used as a resource in another statement, it is accessible via API but is not contained in the given model. >> Sure. I'm thinking of cases where you have statement z refied via another statement x. Add x to the model and without quads you'll have a reference to z in there somewhere, irregardless of whether it's an assertion or not to the outside world. I'm suggesting you'll need some kind of marker on z to stop queries and iterators operating over it as a fact: it's a minor implementation detail. I think what you're saying is analogous to garbage collection/reference counting of z when nothing is reifying it anymore: you may want to keep it, you may want to reap it. Sergey -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.0 iQA/AwUBOh16IeaWiFwg2CH4EQIaZQCfYLQ3HErWPLW5MnhUPHTmEaN6I2gAoJci 8KqzrupQZO37uLyHi95pD+tP =CXEY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 23 November 2000 15:21:40 UTC