W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > May 2013

Re: rdf:Statement and graphs

From: Bo Ferri <zazi@smiy.org>
Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 14:16:12 +0200
Message-ID: <5184FC0C.10608@smiy.org>
To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
Hi,

some time ago I made a proposal that one could use the 4th element in an 
n-quad like serialisation for statement identifier to make statement 
reification a bit more readable ;) [1]

Cheers,


Bo

[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2011Jan/0001.html

On 5/4/2013 1:35 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 5/3/13 7:07 AM, Jürgen Jakobitsch SWC wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>> is there a way to express that a rdf:Statement belongs to a certain
>> graph?
>>
>> i'm asking with respect to changesSets [1] where i want to add the given
>> statement to one or more specified graphs.
>>
>> if there's no best practice, issue or the like i would subclass
>> rdf:Statement if there's nothing i'm missing out..
>>
>> wkr jürgen
>>
>> [1] http://docs.api.talis.com/getting-started/changesets
>>
>
> Personally, I see a containment oriented relation as an acceptable
> mechanism for  expressing how a statement and a named graph are
> associated. I suspect, historically, folks have stayed away from
> expressing this important association due to the amount of triples it
> generates.
>
> <#SomeGraphIRI>
> :contains <#SomeStamentIRI> .
>
> <#SomeStatementIRI>
> a rdf:Statement;
> rdf:subject <#SomeStatementSubjectIRI>;
> rdf:predicate <#SomeStatementPredicateIRI>;
> rdf:object <#SomeStatementObjectIRI>.
>
> Statement reification is useful.  We are now getting to the point where
> real-world issues are bringing its utility to the fore  :-)
>
Received on Saturday, 4 May 2013 12:16:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:56 UTC