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

No model theory for reification?

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:15:28 -0000
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Cc: <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDKEMECCAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Having consulted with my colleagues I will *not* be proposing to drop
reification.

However, in the feedback I got the following suggestion was made:


> There are two use cases which, if not supported by reification,
> you need to at least document recommended solutions - provenance
> and quoting.
[ ... ]

> One approach might be to not remove reification but to relegate it to an
> advisory section. In particular, leave in the rdf:Statement,
> rdf:subject etc tags as reserved tags. Have two "how to's" which
> describe how one might represent provenance or quoting in RDF and
> say that you have reserved the tags
> "rdf:Statement" etc for this purpose but they have no special
> semantic status other than being the recommended type tags to
> use if you are trying to encode ground facts which happen to be about
> RDF statements.


This approach allows us to:
- avoid the "RDF is (NOT) its own metatheory" hole.
- avoid the stating versus statement problem (depends on usage).
- keep the good bits of reification (have standard vocab. for modelling
RDF).

It is characterised by there being no model theory for reification.

I am well aware that Pat may yet produce a reification rabbit out of his
hat, but currently this sort of approach is my favourite.

We could even throw out all the syntax for reification and still follow this
suggestion; it is more within charter not to do so, and I will not be
proposing such a step.

Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2002 11:17:19 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:43:53 EDT