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

Optional reification

From: schwaenzl <Roland.Schwaenzl@mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:17:59 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <200011291117.MAA21926@scarlett.mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE>
To: begeddov@jfinity.com, skokkeli@mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org


I can't see a reason, why in a standard setting a parser should create a large amount 
of triples, which don't have a meaning. 


None of the examples in the M&S spec ever reifies statements just for fun - 

M&S has a clear strategy of extracting semantics and minimizing XML tagging dependency. 

That is for instance: No ( ) [reifications of caused by introducing artificial bagID's] 
are required in a situation of associativity on the 
semantic level.  Given Statements A, B, C about resource X, then in RDF 

(A B) (C )= (A) (B C) = (A B C) = (A) (B) (C) = A B C, 
where () indicate a <Description> block. 


Cheers
rs
Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2000 06:18:06 GMT

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