- 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