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

Re: 4-triple reification considered harmful

From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 10:47:30 +0200
Message-ID: <39338022.38B88742@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
CC: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Sergey Melnik wrote:
> 
> The current spec suggests the "4 triple" form of reification. It may
> seem that there is a need for that on the modeling level; I believe
> there is none. 

I don't understand it as being a need, but a consequence :
assume a triple has a corresponding resource,
this resource clearly has the 4 properties proposed by M&S
even if this resource has been produced by a Skolem function

now, the other way round,
you can consider any resource with those 4 properties
as a reification for a corresponding triple.
That's how I understand M&S approach.


there is still the problem of what model is asserting a triple,
that's why I like the idea of Graham,
for replacing triples with 4-uples :
(subject,predicate,object,context)

and then a 5th property attached to reified statements ;-P

  Pierre-Antoine

--- Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
    Whatever is said in Latin sounds important.
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2000 04:40:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:43 GMT