- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:37:21 -0400
- To: Bob MacGregor <macgregor@isi.edu>
- cc: Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>, "'RDF interesting groupe'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> The right solution is to use contexts. Contexts can be implemented
> using quads instead of triples, or by using a scheme for
> encapsulating groups of statements, as is done in the Triple system.
> The DAWG committee is taking baby steps towards contexts by
> including a SOURCE element in BRQL. If you substitute the term
> "context" for "source" in a BRQL query, then you have quads. Some
> of us are planning to "abuse" BRQL by treating the sources as if
> they are contexts. I would not be surprised if members of the DAWG
> committee have that in mind (but I can't speak for them).
>
> At some point in the future, quad stores are likely to become
> commonplace--there are a few already.
While I'm fond of quad stores (eg in cwm and SWI prolog) and
agree they're generally the way to go -- how do you propose exchanging
quad-store data? My store knows that source x said {a b c}, but how
do I publish that fact?
It seems to me that some reificiation vocabulary is useful for this,
although I'd recommend that stores de-reify when possible and store as
quads, for the performance reasons you cite. Of course a
serialization with quoting (like N3's {...}) makes it a lot more
readable.
-- sandro
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2004 16:33:33 UTC