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

RE: unreification

From: Bill dehOra <BdehOra@interx.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:20:23 -0000
Message-ID: <DD70D605CB99D411B13600508BDE6F2E081ED3@NTLONDON_01>
To: "'www-rdf-interest@w3.org'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

> actually, in the Stanford API (I'm not sure about Jena),
> statements are Resources and they have a URI.

Jena does this and so do I. But that's an implementation hack (or feature if
your prefer :).

> As soon as I assert S1 in a model, I *implicitely* assert

Not according the RDFm: "we have merly added four more triples", and none of
these triples have URIs representations, they're simply members of a set
called Statements. I'm not sure what an "implicit assertion" means in the
context of an api, unless you're talking about some form of lazy

> Then what about a statement I did not assert (i.e. I do not believe) ?
> Well, then we have statements S[2-5] without S1,
> and there is no problem about removing only some of them,
> since I may have only *partial* knowledge about a statement...

No you've just removed a complete statement from the set of statements.
There is no one statement corresponding to the reified_statement (about
which we have partial knowledge) in the set of statements, there's only
quads of statements that we can interpret as an something we don't want to
be a fact but want to be able to generate statements around.
Reified_statements are not statements: they simply don't exist in that
sense. That's why I'm trying to determine whether these quads should be
treated as a transactional unit. If I can't fully assert a triple as a
statement, but only as a quad of statements can I reasonably enter into it
and retract away bits (individual statements) of it?


Received on Friday, 17 November 2000 07:21:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:33 UTC