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

Re: No model theory for reification?

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 22:04:58 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020110220145.03860c00@joy.songbird.com>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
This seems fine to me.  One nit...

At 04:15 PM 1/10/02 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>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.

Do you mean "there being no special model theory"...   I see no reason why 
the standard model theory should not apply -- we just don't (yet) try to 
say anything specific about the intended interpretation of the reserved 
vocabulary.

>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.

Well, yes.

>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.

I would personally prefer to see rdf:ID= in property elements used 
consistently to identify the corresponding rdf:Statement resource, etc.

#g


------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
        __
       /\ \
      /  \ \
     / /\ \ \
    / / /\ \ \
   / / /__\_\ \
  / / /________\
  \/___________/
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2002 18:36:37 EST

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