- From: Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:33:46 +0100
- To: Mirko <idonthaveenoughinformation@googlemail.com>
- Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Hi Mirko, On 13 October 2010 14:02, Mirko <idonthaveenoughinformation@googlemail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > I try to understand alternatives to reification for Linked Data publishing, > since reification is discouraged. For example, how could I express the > following without reification: > @prefix dc: <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/>. > @prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>. > <http://ex.org/stmt> > rdfs:label "Statement that describes user interest in a document"@de; > rdf:subject <http://ex.org/User>; > rdf:predicate foaf:interest; > rdf:object <http://ex.org/Item>; > dc:publisher <http://ex.org/Service>; > dc:created "2010-10-13"^^xsd:date; > dc:license <http://ex.org/License>. > <http://ex.org/User> rdf:type foaf:Agent. > <http://ex.org/Item> rdf:type foaf:Document. Why not just model this as an N-Ary relationship [1, 2]? This allows you to explicitly model the event of someone expressing interest in a document. You can still infer and publish more direct relationships (e.g. foaf:interest) from the more structured version [3]. Formally publishing that derivation using rules or OWL would also be useful. I'm not convinced that you need to jump immediately to Named Graphs, Quads, or specific software features here. Especially as they may not make it easier to either publish or consume the data. If its useful data, then just model it! Cheers, L. [1]. http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/ [2]. http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/nary-relation.html [3]. http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/ch04s07.html -- Leigh Dodds Programme Manager, Talis Platform Talis leigh.dodds@talis.com http://www.talis.com
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 09:34:21 UTC