W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > February 2008

"deification" use case

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:51:43 +0100
Message-ID: <47BDBA2F.2060402@deri.org>
To: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Gary just clarified that "deify" means "worship as a god"... fits, 
because I meant to accept a reified statement as truth.

I was a bit worried about dropping the option to have nested 
frames/refification in BLD for RDF use cases.
Actually, what I maent is that this is can be useful for unvealing
reified statments in RDF. However, I just realized that RDF 
Reification/Deification doesn't need that feature, my error.

An example.

"Jos believes that Reification in BLD is a bad thing."

RDF:

:jos :believes _:s
_:s rdf:subject :ReificationInBLD.
_:s rdf:predicate rdf:type.
_:s rdf:object :BadThing.

Now I might want to write a RIF rule to get out
all that Jos believes:

?X[?Y->?Z] :-
    (:jos[:believes->?S] and
     ?S[rdf:subject->:ReificationInBLD] and
     ?S[rdf:predicate->rdf:type] and
     ?S[rdf:object->:BadThing])

but... for that I don't need real reification, so it is also possible 
with the BLD without reified/nested statements.
Obviously, this is not a RIF DL Rule.

So, I am fine to drop reification in BLD,
Axel

-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
email: axel@polleres.net  url: http://www.polleres.net/

rdfs:Resource owl:differentFrom xsd:anyURI .
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2008 17:51:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:45 GMT