- From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@ontopia.net>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:38:40 +0200
- To: "'RDF interesting groupe'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
* Sandro Hawke
|
| While I'm fond of quad stores (eg in cwm and SWI prolog) and agree
| they're generally the way to go --
I find this discussion really interesting, because my conclusion from
studying the possible integration of topic maps and RDF for a long
time is that if RDF were quads instead of triples the integration
would be an awful lot easier.
There are three main sticking points to TM/RDF integration[1]:
- representing scope in RDF, (requires reification if you use
triples),
- the fact that reification is so awkward in RDF, and
- the representation of associations.
Quads solve the first two, and the second one can then be worked
around by making the association a blank node. It's imperfect, since
it's not symmetric with RDF, but workable.
For the Reference Model workshop that the ISO committee had a couple
of weeks ago in Montréal I wrote up a rough sketch of this:
<URL: http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/quads-montreal-2004.pdf >
It's not fully worked out, and there are problems with it that aren't
mentioned in the slides (because I hadn't thought of them at the
time), but it seems quite promising.
| 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?
Well, leaving RDF/XML aside, it doesn't seem very difficult to create
an XML syntax where the reification is done without having to create
global identifiers for the statements. For example:
<bogus-quad-syntax>
<statement subject="a" property="b" object="c">
<statement property="source" object="x"/>
<!-- subject is implicitly parent statement -->
</statement>
</bogus-quad-syntax>
[1] More detail than you are likely to want can be found in my paper
on this: <URL: http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/tmrdf.html >
--
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50 <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 08:39:13 UTC