Does that work right down to the level of the individual triple though? If a large percentage of my triples are each in their own individual graphs, won't that be chaos? I really don't know the answer, it's not a rhetorical question! Hugh On Nov 6, 2013, at 10:40 , Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Named Graphs are the way to solve the issue you bring up in that post, in > my opinion. You mint an identifier for the graph, and associate the > provenance and other information with that. This then gets ingested as the > 4th URI into a quad store, so you don't lose the provenance information. > > In JSON-LD: > { > "@id" : "uri-for-graph", > "dcterms:creator" : "uri-for-hugh", > "@graph" : [ > // ... triples go here ... > ] > } > > Rob > > > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Hugh Cayless <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I wrote about this a few months back at >> http://blogs.library.duke.edu/dcthree/2013/07/27/the-trouble-with-triples/ >> >> I'd be very interested to hear what the smart folks here think! >> >> Hugh >> >> On Nov 5, 2013, at 18:28 , Alexander Johannesen < >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> But the >>> question to every piece of meta data is *authority*, which is the part >>> of RDF that sucks. >>