Re: Reification alternative

Hi Mirko, Am 14.10.2010 15:08, schrieb Mirko: Thank you all for your helpful comments. First, let me clarify my intention. My question aimed not so much at the (internal) storage of the data, but really on how to publish them as Linked Data, so that they are useful for third parties (= easy to q

Re: Reification alternative

Thank you all for your helpful comments. First, let me clarify my intention. My question aimed not so much at the (internal) storage of the data, but really on how to publish them as Linked Data, so that they are useful for third parties (= easy to query and consume). I use Virtuoso and want to pu

Re: Reification alternative

Hi Mirko, On 13 October 2010 14:02, Mirko wrote: > Hi all, > I try to understand alternatives to reification for Linked Data publishing, > since reification is discouraged. For example, how could I express the > following without reification: > @prefix dc: . > @p

Re: Reification alternative

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:02:01 +0200 Mirko wrote: > I try to understand alternatives to reification for Linked Data > publishing, since reification is discouraged. For completeness, as it's not been mentioned, one method would be to publish two files. This is semantically similar to the use of nam

Re: [Virtuoso-users] Reification alternative

Aldo, On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 16:02 -0300, Aldo Bucchi wrote: > From the docs: > > "output:route: works only for SPARUL operators and tells the SPARQL > compiler to generate procedure names that differ from default. As a > result, the effect of operator will depend on application. That is for > tri

Re: Reification alternative

Mirko wrote: Hi all, I try to understand alternatives to reification for Linked Data publishing, since reification is discouraged. For example, how could I express the following without reification: @prefix dc: . @prefix foaf: .

Re: [Virtuoso-users] Reification alternative

Hi Ivan, Hehe, I knew you were going to jump in, that's why I CC'd this to virtuoso-users ;) Before getting into the content of your response, let me just say this: I think Mirko's example is actually really common. Every application that I have built needs to keep track of ( at least ) two othe

Re: [Virtuoso-users] Reification alternative

Hello Aldo, I'd recommend to keep RDF_QUAD unchanged and use RDF Views to keep n-ary things in separate tables. The reason is that the access to RDF_QUAD is heavily optimized, we've never "polished" any other table to such a degree (and I hope we will not :), and any changes may result in severe p

Re: Reification alternative

Hi Mirko, Here's a tip that is a bit software bound but it may prove useful to keep it in mind. Virtuoso's Quad Store is implemented atop an RDF_QUAD table with 4 columns (g, s, p o). This is very straightforward. It may even seem naive at first glance. ( a table!!? ). Now, the great part is tha

Re: Reification alternative

I see mainly 2 alternatives: 1) using quads; 2) using named graphs. 1) Quads - Quads simply add a fourth element to triples. That element can be used for instance to annotated the triple, or name the triple for further descriptions. With your example: ex:User foaf:interest ex:Item

Re: Reification alternative

Hi Mirko, well the thing is, it wouldn't really work without a form a of reification (in my mind). There are use cases, where people prefer a simple knowledge representation of a semantic relation, and other ones, where people like to get a more detailed description about the semantic relatio

Reification alternative

Hi all, I try to understand alternatives to reification for Linked Data publishing, since reification is discouraged. For example, how could I express the following without reification: @prefix dc: . @prefix foaf: .