W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > December 2001

Re: Reification

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 11:54:39 +0100
To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <OF077AF0C2.23C3E6CE-ONC1256B22.0039D442@bayer-ag.com>
> Jos:
> > I would propose to drop reification!
> > so proposal to drop its sentences in 5.5, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12 and 5.14
> > as well as "5.26 Reification Rules"
> Mike Dean posted an interesting provenance example to webont:
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2001Dec/0102.html
> My take on this was not - wow a use case for reification, but ...
>  This use case needs provenance. Provenance is an important part of the
> information; hence the provenance model should be an *explicit part* of the
> overall schema/ontology for the information being collected.
> i.e. RDF reification can be seen as a one size fits all solution for
> provenance, which history shows as having fitted hardly anyone. A better
> way, which is more in tune with the extremely open undogmatic nature of the
> semantic web, is to allow many different schemata for provenance to flourish
> and not to give preference to any one of them.
> I think we should not *drop* reification, just not encourage it.
> We can treat reification as a purely syntactic macro, turning an rdf:ID on a
> property element into the reification quad. We could offer no model theory,
> and no primer. It is there simply as a backward compatibility thing.

I think the rdf:ID is a good idea ;-)
and then just say
  <some-rdf-document#idea> eg:saidBy hp:Jeremy .
and of course, an engine/application interpreting
that sentence has to *dereference* the subject
(but that's all determined by the verb semantics)

Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 05:56:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:54 UTC