W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: Dark triples, motivating examples

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:14:07 -0700
Message-ID: <005601c1e594$06fc40c0$657ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "RDF-comments" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Cc: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Aaron says:

Alright, but do dark triples fix reification?

Seth:

Didn't know that reification was broken.  I though it was resolved by the WG
very nicely.

Grahm says:

[[
I think not, because they don't of themselves provide a way to identify a
statement.  Of course, one can use the reification vocabulary and
assert(sic) that it's "dark", but I guess that's not what you meant by
"fix"?
]]

Seth continues:

I fail to see how the triple refered to by a reification quad is *not* dark
in the graph which contains it.  For example:

In a graph containing this reification quad:

_:1 rdf:type rdf:Statement.
_:1 rdf:subject foo:S.
_:1 rdf:predicate foo:V.
_:1 rdf:object foo:O.

The triple:

foo:S foo:V foo:O.

Is *certainly* dark.

Seth Russell

--- in response to ---
re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0205.html
To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Dark triples, motivating examples

At 12:11 AM 4/16/02 -0500, Aaron Swartz wrote:
> > PS. A pre-emptive strike: reification doesn't do it, either.
>
>Alright, but do dark triples fix reification?

I think not, because they don't of themselves provide a way to identify a
statement.  Of course, one can use the reification vocabulary and
assert(sic) that it's "dark", but I guess that's not what you meant by
"fix"?
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 18:19:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:30 GMT