# Re: Reification in RDF MT (probably off-topic)

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 18:06:52 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010907180312.035d8a80@joy.songbird.com>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>

```At 07:51 AM 9/7/01 -0700, pat hayes wrote:
>>(Not strictly a WG topic for now, but I wanted to test my understanding...)
>>
>>In the 28-Aug MT draft, section 4, the reification conditions are
>>described as
>>
>>(V union VxVxV) is a subset of IR
>><x,y> is in IEXT(I(rdf:subject)) iff for some a,b,c in V, x=<a b c> and y=a
>><x,y> is in IEXT(I(rdf:predicate)) iff for some a,b,c in V, x=<a b c> and y=b
>><x,y> is in IEXT(I(rdf:object)) iff for some a,b,c in V, x=<a b c> and y=c
>>x is in ICEXT(I(rdf:Statement)) iff for some a,b,c in V, x=<a b c>
>>
>>This seems to say that *every* 3-tuple in VxVxV is of type rdf:Statement.
>
>In VxVxV, yes. Not every triple in IRxIRxIR is, of course.
>
>>This appears to preclude the use of the 3-tuple for any other purpose.
>
>Er.... .not sure what 'use' means here. You can assert anything you like
>about the triple, since its in IR. But it is indeed of type rdf:Statement.

It's probably a red herring.  But I was wondering what would happen if one
wanted, in future, to allow 3-tuples of resources in the domain of
interpretation for some purpose other than representing a statement.  I
find it difficult to imagine a useful node that wouldn't be some part of
some statement, hence be a member of V.

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
```
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 17:06:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:52 UTC