Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote: > > Sergey Melnik wrote: > > I inherited his idea [making Statement inherit Resource] 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. > > What you did in the stanford API, by making Statement inherit Resource, > is in my point of view handling *only* reified statements. > > This is absolutely consistent with RDF M&S, implying that all statements in an RDF description are reified and put in a Bag. That bag is implicitely modeled by the Model class in the API. > > With this point of view, the RDF model does not have to be extended to "match" the API... > > Pierre-Antoine That's right, you can view the API as a number of convenience methods to deal with Bags etc. The only proper incompatibility that I'm counting on is the uniqueness of reified statements. SergeyReceived on Wednesday, 29 November 2000 14:53:48 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 23 April 2007 18:19:44 GMT