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.
>>