- 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