W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: RDF-ISSUE-25 (Deprecate Reification): Should we deprecate (RDF 2004) reification? [Cleanup tasks]

From: David Wood <dpw@talis.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 18:18:02 -0400
Message-Id: <BD9B8D1B-4DE7-48BA-904E-A08F288974E8@talis.com>
To: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

On Apr 7, 2011, at 18:07, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> 
> RDF-ISSUE-25 (Deprecate Reification): Should we deprecate (RDF 2004) reification? [Cleanup tasks]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/25
> 
> Raised by: Sandro Hawke
> On product: Cleanup tasks
> 
> 
> The RDF 1999 and 2004 Recommendations include vocabulary and syntax
> (in RDF/XML) for RDF "reification".  The vocabulary is rdf:Statement,
> rdf:subject, rdf:predicate, and rdf:object; the syntax is rdf:ID used
> on a property element.
> 
> Although this feature is sometimes used in practice, some experts
> advise data providers to avoid it.  It has no syntactic support in
> RDFa or Turtle.  Should the WG align with this advice and say this
> feature is only to be use for backward compatibility?  (That is,
> RDF/XML parsers must continue to support the syntax, and libraries
> should allow applications to use the features to interoperate with
> legacy RDF systems.)
> 
> Note that many or all of the use cases of reification are also uses
> cases for [GRAPHS].  The decision about the fate of reificiation is
> connected with what happens with [GRAPHS].


Might reification undergo a renaissance when provenance comes back into fashion?  Couldn't we consider reification a degenerate case of a named graph?

We might want to go slowly on this one...

Regards,
Dave


> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/#reification
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/RDF_Core_Work_Items#Data_Model_Issues
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 22:18:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:41 GMT