В сообщении от Saturday 12 January 2008 23:02:18 Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen написал(а): > On 12/01/2008, Evgeny Egorochkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > В сообщении от Saturday 12 January 2008 01:05:38 Mikkel Kamstrup > > Erlandsen > > > > написал(а): > > > On 11/01/2008, Sebastian Trüg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Just my 2 cents: > > > > Soprano has a IMOH very good DBus API [1] for RDF storage which > > > > fulfills all 3 of your requirements below. We already use it for > > > > Nepomuk and it works great. And since Xesam is already using URIs to > > > > identify stuff why not go the extra mile to RDF storage altogether? > > > > > > I thought Soprano depended on Qt? > > > > This is not a dependency that you can't easily get rid of. > > > > > Anyways, I don't think the RDF quadruples is a good thing to expose > > > directly to the programmers who just want a quick and dirty metadata > > > storage. It is simply just too technical. That does not mean that we > > > cannot use that stuff under the hood though. > > > > Which part of ( URI, property name, property value , timestamp ) > > programmers can't understand and why should it be hidden? > > Exactly my point :-) ( URI, property name, property value , timestamp > ) is fine, but exposing the general Named Graph terminology (and > features)
Actually there's nothing more to named graphs than another element added to the triple. So you can differentiate named graphs with namespacing like mtime:/ uri. Using name graphs only for mtime might backfire in the sense that named graphs could be used in other ways like to store provenance info(where speicifc triple came from). > in the API is too generic to my taste. If we say that the > triple name is always a timestamp I am ok with it. Actually generic API is the only one that's really needed, because it is the most powerful. This doesn't exclude having a set of convenience functions to do typical queries or even completely hide the RDFish and SPARQLish nature of the matter for certain users of the technology. > However I thought names had to be unique. Timestamps are generally > not... Maybe I did not read that Named Graph spec properly. There are no limitations for graph names. in fact, graph name is just a 4th element of the RDF triple so to say :) with the same limitations or rather lack thereof. -- Evgeny _______________________________________________ Xesam mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xesam
