W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: Observations (named graphs, blank node closures)

From: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni@wup.it>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:51:54 +0100
Message-ID: <421C8A7A.5090807@wup.it>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
CC: S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk

>From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk 

>Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 09:21:17 +0000
>To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org 

>On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 04:57:01 +0100, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
>> If i understand right, it  is  not the same as in my example
>> In my example I was binding the reification node, something defined in 
>> the standard, and that can be used to define the context of that triple 
>> with ease (you got a node, you can attach metadata to it, simple).
>Ah, I see. Yes, I misunderstood I thought you were discussing
>reification in the general sense, rather than RDF Reification.
>RDF Reification doesnt address the issue of the "source" of a triple, it
>just provides a syntaxic shortcut to express a triple in its exploded
>form, so it doesnt support what I personally require for triple
>- Steve

I am not sure i understand you, in which sense it doesnt support what you personally require for triple identification? 
By RDF semantics the only thing that distinguish a triple by another is its very subjecty predicate and object 
that is why triplestores dont allow duplicates.
Once you have a reification node you can attach source information. say both bob and alice say "giovanni bla bla" you just need a single giovanni bla bla triple ,
a single reification node and 2 statements that say "said by alice" "said by bob" and by rdf semantics it all works 
where works means that is you could split the single graph into the 2 original ones.
Looking forward to her your specific case.
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 13:51:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:46 UTC