W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: reification terminology question

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 10:14:12 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020425101336.0335cc78@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 15:24 24/04/2002 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
>Guys, I would like some advise on the preferred terminology to use when 
>discussing reification.
>
>If we start with a triple
>
>a b c .
>
>and reify it, we get a graph of four triples
>
>_:x rdf:type rdf:Statement .
>_:x rdf:subject a .
>_:x rdf:predicate b .
>_:x rdf:object c .
>
>1. I think it is correct to refer to the second graph as "a reification" 
>of the first triple, is that right?

yes.

>2. Is there a preferred terminology to refer to the bnode which denotes 
>the triple in the reification, ie _:x in this example? (If not, I will 
>have to make one up.)

M&S uses "reified statement".

Brian
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 09:04:41 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:36 EDT