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

Re: summary of reification?

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:25:50 -0600
Message-Id: <p0510143bb88723ac59e5@[]>
To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>after your excellent job of summarizing datatyping periodically, I feel
>a desire for your summary of reification, so once you get to it... ;)
>I did not follow the recent postings all too closely, but here is a
>scoop of how reification is currently used in some commercial
>applications I helped with.
>- (Reified) statements are first-class objects in the programming
>language, just like resources and literals. For example, they can be
>used in the object position of another statement. At the API and storage
>level, the URI-identity of (reified) statements is irrelevant (no URIs
>are used/generated).


>- Efficient exchange of RDF data that contains reified statements is
>done using an alternative RDF syntax, which supports compact XML
>representation of reified statements (I guess, the 4-triple form could
>be used as well, but it's just waaay too verbose for exchange and needs
>special care during parsing...)

That sounds like saying that reification does not use reification. 
The 4-triple form IS reification in RDF, right? If not, what do you 
mean by 'reification' here?

>- Existence of a reified statement does not imply the existence of the
>corresponding asserted statement.

OK, but...

>Each asserted statement can be viewed
>as also (implicitly) existing in its reified form.

....what does that mean, 'implicitly existing' ? Is it a valid 
inference from a triple to its reified form? I hope not, see below.

>The predicates
>rdf:subject, rdf:predicate and rdf:object and never used. A query like
>(X, rdf:subject, <uri>) is stated as X = (<uri>, wildcard, wildcard)

What a VERY good idea. In other words, RDF reification is not used.

>In the above approach, neither bNodes, nor additional 4 triples are ever
>used for dealing with reification. In this perspective, our decision on
>reification would probably have no impact on the implementation. Maybe
>we should not be all too academic and/or religious about how to
>formalize reification properly. We could just simply move it out of the
>way quickly and focus on making the use of reification more
>interoperable and efficient (specifically, I hate using an alternative

Or, better, why not just trash it, since apparently nobody uses it anyway.

>I see two ways of how the semantics of reification could be attacked:
>1. Explain the semantics using bNode + 4-triple constructs. Applications
>are free to use a compact representation. If statements are used as
>first-class objects, they can be treated just as some kind of bNodes.
>The API-level identity of such bNodes is functionally determined by
>their (s,p,o)-description. Alternatively, the applications can generate
>exactly one such bNode for each (s,p,o) etc. Same trick could be applied
>for  dealing with functionally determined bNodes in the model theory.

No trick is needed. The ordinary MT already would treat the 4-triples 
in this way already; reification is semantically transparent, on this 
view. Which is another way of saying that we are trashing it. After 
all, there's no way to stop anyone writing those 4-triples if they 
want to, right? Trashing it doesn't make it illegal, it just says 
that we aren't saying anything particular about what it means: its 
not a language feature, its just a way you might want to write some 
RDF. Go ahead if y'all feel like it.

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 13:25:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:55 UTC