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

Re: Statements/Reified statements

From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 20:12:26 -0000
Message-ID: <004d01c0558a$b95cfa20$31dd883e@dehora>
To: "Sergey Melnik" <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Cc: "RDF Interest Group" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> One other thing (I essentially agree with this btw). How would one
> add a reified statement to a container (such as a jena/stanford
> Model) without asserting it? Carry tables for assertions and
> refications and indicate that a statement is present in reified
> form but "not asserted here" (nah)? It's certainly simpler than
> maintaining quads.

[Sergey]: Actually, no special mechanism for that is necessary. In my
opinion,
having a reified statement in a model that is not used as subject or
object of another statement is futile; this does not add any
information. If a reified statement is used as a resource in another
statement, it is accessible via API but is not contained in the given
model.
>>

Sure. I'm thinking of cases where you have statement z refied via
another statement x. Add x to the model and without quads you'll have
a reference to z in there somewhere, irregardless of whether it's an
assertion or not to the outside world. I'm suggesting you'll need
some kind of marker on z to stop queries and iterators operating over
it as a fact: it's a minor implementation detail. I think what you're
saying is analogous to garbage collection/reference counting of z
when nothing is reifying it anymore: you may want to keep it, you may
want to reap it.

Sergey

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0

iQA/AwUBOh16IeaWiFwg2CH4EQIaZQCfYLQ3HErWPLW5MnhUPHTmEaN6I2gAoJci
8KqzrupQZO37uLyHi95pD+tP
=CXEY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 23 November 2000 15:21:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:47 GMT