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

Re: lightweight reification

From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 13:36:31 +0100
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000531133300.00b6bec0@pop.dial.pipex.com>
To: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
Cc: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 09:32 AM 5/31/00 +0200, Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote:
> > Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote:
> > >Why should we make a difference between reifying a triple and reifying 
> an arc,
> > >that is :
> > >
> > >  ___________
> > >| S -(P)-> O|         S -(P)-> O
> > >|___________|             |
> > >       |              (assertedBy)
> > >  (assertedBy)             |
> > >       |                   v
> > >       v                Someone
> > >    Someone
> > >
> > >    (fig 1)              (fig 2)
>
> > Fig 2 can be treated as a convenient shorthand for S-(P)->O, PLUS its
> > reification, PLUS the arc 'assertedBy' from the root resource of the
> > reification to 'Someone'.
>
>that's not a shorthand, that's the way I understand what you describe !
>Everyone seems to consider a triple reification as the frame in fig.1,
>I consider a triple reification as the arc itself,
>because reifying it (i.e. "making it a thing") is necessary to draw 
>another arc from it.

But reification described in M&S involves making a node resource for the 
statement, AND adding four graph arcs originating from that node.  If we 
can find a usable identity for the statement resource, then the four 
additional arcs aren't necessarily needed.

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2000 12:02:16 GMT

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