- From: Dave Beckett <Dave.Beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:52:00 +0100
- To: "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>
- CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:14:47 +0200, "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de> said: > Hi all, > it really looks like this reification discussion make some > people sit down and work :-) > We will see a wave of quad/namedgraph-based implementations > being released in the next weeks. Up to my knowledge, the > following people are currently working on implementations: ... > Anybody else? Continuing the "Me Too" thread... Redland's had support for this kind of thing using Redland Contexts[1] for two years. http://www.redland.opensource.ac.uk/ But no quads. That would be not-RDF. One issue I see is that Named Graphs as currently defined by only allow URIs whereas several of the context and provenance proposals use or allow blank nodes - several have been given in earlier messages. In our work for the W3C RDF Data Access Working Group (DAWG), it would be good to know whether URIs alone are sufficient, or if as we suspect, many people want graphs named with blank nodes such as for triples from inference. I thought there were problems with the scoping of blank-node named graphs, somewhere in one of the named graph papers. If you want to send feedback to the DAWG, see http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/ and use the reply mail. Use cases with real data, queries and expected results would be most excellent! Dave [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/large_scale_demo/
Received on Friday, 10 September 2004 11:52:41 UTC