Re: Advancing translational research with the Semantic Web

>>>>> "BP" == Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> writes:

  EJ> Reification?
  >> 
  >> That's who, not why.

  BP> No, you can do both with reification.

Well, you can do anything with anything:-)


  >> The Gene Ontologies evidence codes are and references are much
  >> closer.
  >> 
  >> Also, I am not sure of the semantics of reification.

  BP> RDF reification has very little to no built in semantics. What
  BP> it provides is a standardized syntax.

Ok. I presume it provided a standardised syntax for something, at
least implied. 

Does it mean, then, when a triple is reified that the triple is in
some way associated with this other resource?


  BP> However, all this *supports* your point. There *IS* no
  BP> standardized way to represent this sort of information.  There
  BP> is a more or less standard (and widely loathed) hook/technique
  BP> upon which you could build a standard mechanism for representing
  BP> this sort of information.


Yeah, thats my feeling. Reification is a start for doing this, and
might provide a underpinning. 

Phil