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

Re: Orthogonal triples

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 14:09:08 -0800
Message-ID: <3A1D9584.E83ADE79@robustai.net>
To: alberto.reggiori@jrc.it
CC: RDF Interest Group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Alberto Reggiori wrote:

> Isn't reification useful to attach properties to statements as RDF self
> is useful to attach arbitrary properties to resources?

I think it is not only useful, it is essential.  There is no way in RDF to
attach properties to statements themselves without first reifying them as
subjects in their own right.  But we could talk about statements objectively
if we allow that they each have an identifier.

> I.e.  Are the "abstract statements" space and the "concrete
> statements/entities" space orthogonal in some sense? :-)

I think so.   The entire node in a RDF graph points to a entity that is not
inside the graph.  Unless of course the node represents (reifies) a
statement that is in the graph.  In my book that makes the two different
representations orthogonal.

> When we search a RDF storage or database normally we assume some
> "context" and consequently
> select and join result sets. But I think in more complex cases (such as
> a semantic Web applications) one application
> can not assume (hardcode) such things; you need some way to carry out
> user inputs as a set of atomic queries by
> unifying query results from different "contexts".

I agree.

> Am I wrong, partially, completely, crazy or stupid?

Not at all.

> Is RDF logic/inference work in the domain of the abstract or concrete
> space, or both?

Hopefully both.

Seth Russell
Received on Thursday, 23 November 2000 17:07:56 GMT

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