Re: 4-triple reification considered harmful

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.