W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2000

Re: Discussion-Paper: A Logical Interpretation of RDF

From: Stefan Kokkelink <skokkeli@mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:37:01 +0200
Message-ID: <39AE7B9D.1C9A9A0D@mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
CC: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Reinhold Klapsing <Reinhold.Klapsing@uni-essen.de>
"McBride, Brian" wrote:
> 
> Reinhold,
> 
> This paper was a pleasure to read!

Right! We (at least I ;-) need a formal description of RDF.

> There were a few places where I couldn't reconcile what
> was written with my intutions:
> 
> o (2) statement(s,p,o) => uri(s) ...
> 
>   I'm not sure how to interpret uri(s).  RDF has anonymous
>   resources.  Is uri(s) true for such resources?  

That is exactly the point which I would like to be
examined more closely: The representation of
anonymous resources in an RDF (triple) model
and operations that are allowed for the model.

Consider the following example: 

<Description bagID="XXX">
  <dc:ceator>karl</dc:creator>
</Description>

This results in the model:

(genid0,dc:creator.'karl')
(XXX,rdf:type,rdf:Bag)
(XXX,rdf:_1,genid1)
(genid1,rdf:type,rdf:Statement)
(genid1,rdf:subject,genid0)
(genid1,rdf:predicate,dc:creator)
(genid1,rdf:object,'karl')

Now I want to reify the statement
(genid1,rdf:subject,genid0). No 
problem in the triple model, simply 
add the appropriate four statements
for the reification.

It is not possible to represent this new
model in XML syntax !!! (At least if
you want to preserve the anonymous resources,
and I always thought there are good 
reasons to do so).

What does this mean: Is the new model not 
correct? Are there statements in RDF that
can't be reified? Or do anonymous resources
not exist in the RDF data model?

best regards
Stefan
Received on Thursday, 31 August 2000 11:50:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:44 GMT