- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 11:22:28 -0400
- To: public-hydra@w3.org
- Message-ID: <53908B34.6070101@openlinksw.com>
On 6/5/14 9:35 AM, Ruben Verborgh wrote: >> >As Gregg noted in a different mail [1] (I'm on a plane, so perhaps he >> >already responded himself in the meantime) using rdf:subject etc. would mean >> >that the whole thing is an rdf:Statement: > Which does not need to be a bad thing. > >> > I don't think we want to invoke Reification > But we are: if we say that > "this is the document consisting of triples with that subject and predicate", > we are doing reification. No need to hide that. > +1 Markus: I don't know how reification became a conflation of "bad thing" and "bad word". If denoting useful things with HTTP URIs is RDF based Linked Data 101, what's wrong with denoting an rdf:Statement ? Reification is actually very useful, and it does actually help developers and end-user comprehend RDF. These matters are all artificially confusing because of that ghastly RDF notation called RDF/XML. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2014 15:22:54 UTC