Closed markusgraube closed 9 years ago
Another option would be
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix test: <http://test.com/> .
@prefix rmo: <http://eatld.et.tu-dresden.de/rmo#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
[] rdf:type rmo:Master, rmo:Branch ;
rdfs:label "master" ;
rmo:references [
rmo:revisionOf test:r43ples-dataset-merging ;
rmo:revisionNumber "1" .
].
[] rdf:type rmo:Branch ;
rdfs:label "B1" ;
rmo:references [
rmo:revisionOf test:r43ples-dataset-merging ;
rmo:revisionNumber "1.0-1" .
] .
[] rdf:type rmo:Branch ;
rdfs:label "B2" ;
rmo:references [
rmo:revisionOf test:r43ples-dataset-merging ;
rmo:revisionNumber "1.1-2"
]
Perhaps it is better to provide a RDF revision graph in the HTTP response header than to split into multiple columns with the necessity to parse these fields correctly.
Not a full graph is required. Only the revisions for all tags and branches is necessary with their revisionnumber.
For example this field could be named r43ples-revisiongraph with the content: