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>
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
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

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.


Version: PGP 7.0

Received on Thursday, 23 November 2000 15:21:40 UTC

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