W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2005

Re: Exchange of Named RDF Graphs

From: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni@wup.it>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 11:14:22 +0100
Message-ID: <41DBBDFE.8020108@wup.it>
To: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

I cant get rid of the feeling that named graphs are just, a bad idea?

considering statements inside "files which have a name"  seems a naive 
way to make nothing else than a "bag of reifications" that is a way to 
assign a URI (the name of the graph) to a bunch of statements. Given 
that bag of statements can already be done with the existing specs, this 
is already a reason to drop the idea.. but there is more. It is clear 
that statements by nature need overlapping bagging.. that is you might 
want to put certain statements in a certain bag given their order or 
arrival, their author, their inferred trust level or whatever. With 
named graphs this .. is just, ops, not possible unless of course you 
want to copy the statements in different bags. Again with existing 
reifications + rdf bags this is already possibile..
.. and please let us consider past gone the arguments "its too many 
triples". It should be well understood by now the difference between 
model theory and practical implementations which are well free to make 
reifications in the most efficent way they want (e.g. quadruples)

Something must be wrong , or short, in this analysis given that i hear 
about them a lot :-), awaiting for clarifications from those who know more.


Eric Jain wrote:

> Morten Frederiksen wrote:
>> "... There have been other approaches to dealing with graph naming in 
>> RDF, TriG is one, N3/cwm has another — here’s yet another way: 
>> Wrapping up the graphs not in a single document, but in a zip archive 
>> with an index mapping documents to names. ..."
> Been there done that :-) Didn't quite work for me, as I have more 
> named graphs in a data set (up to several million) than existing zip 
> implementations can handle... Regarding the manifest, is there really 
> a need for a seperate file, or could this information be stored in 
> each file with rdf:about=""?
Received on Wednesday, 5 January 2005 10:14:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:54 UTC