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

Re: action item on reification

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 13:50:27 -0500
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B73D4E20.CE33%aswartz@upclink.com>
Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:

>> Well if this is true than we're going to need another class to undo this
>> effect. The same triple can be asserted by multiple people and often we'll
>> want to talk about the stating. Hmm, perhaps:
>>     [ a :Stating ; rdf:value { :TestCases :utility :high } ]
> <snip/>
>> 
>> (To DaveB, the {} in this example should resolve to a single reified
>> triple.)
> 
> When someone uses n3's {}, they need to say what they mean by it -
> does it auto-reify the contained statements, somehow 'quote' the
> content, do the same as parseType="literal" or something else?

Which is exactly why I stated my "To DaveB" bit at the end. In case, for
some reason, you didn't understand it, I meant for it to end up looking
somewhat like:

<Stating>
  <rdf:value>
    <rdf:Statement>
      <rdf:subject rdf:resource="#TestCases" />
      <rdf:predicate rdf:resource="#utility" />
      <rdf:object rdf:resource="#high" />
    </rdf:Statement>
  </rdf:value>
</Stating>

This is a similar interpretation as used by EARL. I hoped that my
description of meaning would clear things up, but apparently not. I hope
that this clears things up -- I just didn't want to type all that XML>

-- 
[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com> ]
Received on Friday, 1 June 2001 14:50:39 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:01 EDT