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

Re: unreification

From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 19:00:38 +0000
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001117185910.00e5cee0@pop.dial.pipex.com>
To: Bill dehOra <BdehOra@interx.com>
Cc: "'www-rdf-interest@w3.org'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
See also, John Sowa's recent comment on the RDF-logic list:

<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2000Nov/0090.html>

#g
--


At 12:58 PM 11/16/00 +0000, Bill dehOra wrote:
>         S'      :[s, p, o].


>         S''     :[Rx, rdf:type, rdf:Statement]
>         S'''    :[Rx, rdf:subject, s]
>         S''''   :[Rx, rdf:predicate, p]
>         S'''''  :[Rx, rdf:object, o]

I'll take a stab at this question too:

--
First:

I think that viewing reification as a process is unhelpful.  I think it's 
more helpful to view it as a relationship, as in:

      X reifies Y

--
Second:

As far as I can tell, statements are used in two distinct ways:
(a) They are quoted
(b) They are asserted

 From your example, { S'', S''', S'''', S''''' } correspond to (a), a 
quotation, and S' corresponds to (b), an assertion.

[[[There may be more, such as:  a statement may be asserted to be 
false.  But RDF doesn't support this directly.  Rather, additional 
constructions based on quoted statements are used (see 
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/toolbox/).]]]

#g
--

------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)


------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Friday, 17 November 2000 13:12:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:46 GMT