I am pretty sure that the intent is that a patch must be read in linear order 
i.e. It is not designed for parallel processing

On 19/10/2016 11:34, "Stian Soiland-Reyes" <st...@apache.org> wrote:

    I had a quick go, and the penalty from gzip with using expanded forms
    without "R" was negligible (~ 0.1%, a bit higher with no prefixes). It
    also means you can't process the RDF Patch in a parallel way without
    preprocessing.  (Same for prefixes).
    
    Using "R" could also restrict possible compression pattern, for instance in 
:
    
    A <http://example.com/thingie15>
    <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type>
    <http://schema.org/Person> .
    A <http://example.com/thingie15>
    <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type>
    <http://schema.org/Person> .
    
    a good compression algorithm might recognize patterns in here like:
    
     .\nA <http://example.com/thingie
    > <http://www.w3.org/
    #type> <http://schema.org/
    
    
    Using "R" would restrict possible patterns - betting on it recognizing
    "> .\nA R R" (which sometimes would work well).
    
    
    
    Can RDF Patch items within a transaction be considered in any order
    (first all the DELETEs, then all the ADDs), or do they have to be
    played back linearly?
    
    
    On 19 October 2016 at 10:57, Rob Vesse <rve...@dotnetrdf.org> wrote:
    > Yes but ANY is a form of lossy compression. You lost the actual details 
of what was removed. Also it can only be used for removals and yields no 
benefit for additions.
    >
    >  On the other hand REPEAT is lossless compression.
    >
    >  However if you apply a general-purpose compression like gzip on top of 
the patch you probably get just as good compression without needing any special 
tokens. In my experience repeat is more useful in compact binary formats where 
you can use fewer bytes to encode it then either the term itself or a reference 
to the term in some lookup table.
    >
    > On 14/10/2016 17:09, "Andy Seaborne" <a...@apache.org> wrote:
    >
    >     These two together seem a bit contradictory.  The advantage of ANY, 
with
    >     versions, is that it is form of compression.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    
    
    
    -- 
    Stian Soiland-Reyes
    http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
    




Reply via email to