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

Re: summary of 'a triple is not unique' and 'statements/reified' statements

From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:58:52 -0800
Message-ID: <3A242A9C.DB56D63@db.stanford.edu>
To: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
CC: RDF Interest Group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
Seth Russell wrote:
> ...
> In defense of Sergey's proposal, I would like to withdraw my allegation that
> it would necessarily be less efficient for expressing context information.
> As the examples below show, either method could be equally as efficient.
> My method:
> [id7, context1, asserts, t1]
> Sergey's method:
> [id8,t1, istin, context1]


some clarification: as far as I can trace it, the first time the
proposal to make statements intrinsic first-class objects by making them
resources was (implicitly) made by Ron Daniel in the RADIX API by
letting Statements subclass Resources. I inherited his idea in the
"Stanford" API, have been relying on it for over a year for both
in-memory and database-backed RDF applications, and it proved pretty
decent so far. Thus, I believe it makes perfect sense to reflect this in
the RDF model itself.

Notice, however, that this proposal states nothing about how
applications should use reification, e.g. whether they should use some
notion of context, use statements as subjects or objects etc. etc.
Whatever I used to back the idea served merely for illustration
purposes, sorry if I caused misunderstanding.

So, the two different representations above are nothing but developer's
choice. In fact, our in-house database implementation uses what you call
"My method" above, if you replace "asserts" by "contains"...

Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2000 16:40:48 UTC

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