- From: Phil Dawes <pdawes@users.sf.net>
- Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:49:00 +0000
- To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Hi All,
I've re-read the Named Graphs paper, had a bit of a think, and I'm
having difficulty in deciding how best to manage graphs in an rdf store.
In RDF, a URI identifies a resource. In a consistent view, if 2
resources have the same URI, they are the same resource.
In Named Graphs, the URI doesn't identify the Named Graph AFAICS. The
named graph is the set {URI, g} (where g is the graph of triples), and
in a consistent view it is legal to have 2 different named graphs with
the same URI (correct?).
This means I can't use RDF to reason about named graphs (at least not
without some sort of transformation), since I can't use the URI to
identify them.
Is this correct?
Cheers,
Phil
Phil Dawes writes:
>
> Hi Patrick,
>
> Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com writes:
> >
> > Since named graphs are named by URIs, one can say what one
> > likes about them.
>
> Something Steve Harris mentioned to me at foaf-galway and got me
> thinking:
> If named graphs are identified by URI, what do you do when you get 2
> graphs with the same URI?
>
> I'm in the process of developing a store that handles graphs (amongst
> other things), and have found this crops up quite a lot.
> e.g. somebody publishes a graph, and then publishes it again slightly
> ammended with the same URI. Or you get the same graph from 2 different
> sources (e.g. quoted from 2 different documents), but can't guarantee
> that they're the same.
>
> AFAICS the best solution appears to be to store the graph with an
> extra layer of indirection - e.g. name the graph with a bnode, and
> then have properties of the bnode that identify the graph (one of
> which could be a URI). This allows multiple graphs with the same URI
> to be stored (but not uniquely identified). Other metadata assocated
> with the graph could then be used to differentiate them (e.g. source,
> datestamp).
>
> Is there a better solution to this problem?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 20 September 2004 15:30:49 UTC