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

Re: Dark triples, motivating examples

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 18:58:55 -0400
Message-Id: <p0510153db8e25ce10beb@[65.217.30.94]>
To: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>
Cc: "RDF-comments" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
>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.

Well, its not even there, so I would say the questions of its 
darkness or lightness don't even arise.

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 18:58:59 GMT

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