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

Re: A triple is not unique.

From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 18:53:18 -0500
Message-ID: <01d101c05416$39e35f70$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Sergey Melnik" <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Cc: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>, "RDF Interest Group" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> Being able to talk about statements is a central concept of RDF and I
> think it should be anchored in the RDF model more intrinsically than it
> is done currently. I don't see a need to bootstrap reification using 4
> special RDF statements. I'd rather have it built-in.

Another point: In general RDF statements will be anonymous triples and
reification is just as you say. The context of this discussion is the
possibility of colliding ***named*** statements. The only way I can see
doing this is by applying an ID to a typedNode of which rdf:Statement is an
example. This 'bootstraping' process simply allows one to 'replace' your
Skolem function with a selected URI in terms of reification. My conclusion
is that triples remain unique.

Received on Tuesday, 21 November 2000 19:05:26 UTC

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