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

RE: abstract model

From: Graham Klyne <GK@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:52:39 +0100
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000915134748.00b79db0@pop.dial.pipex.com>
To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'RDF Interest (E-mail)'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 09:29 AM 9/15/00 +0100, Jan Grant wrote:
>PS. What are the engineering implications of the Reification mapping
>that Brian proposes?
>- does a statement's reification have a URI? (or more than one, since a
>reification is a resource which may have multiple URIs that symbolise
>it)*

IMO, a resource representing the reified statement can have a URI. There 
may be more than one such resource.

>- in which case is there a way of determining that URI for any
>particular reification?

Sure... look to the corresponding resource.

>- given a URI (or just a resource) is there a way of determining which
>statement, if any, it reifies?

If the reification is complete, there should be only one possible statement 
that it reifies.  The RDF model talks about a _set_ of statement triples.

>PPS. I've no problem with Brian's intuition about "Jan made a statement
>about Dan, but I'm not exactly sure what" - it's a nice idea, but I
>don't think it justifies a "the reification" viewpoint.

I think the (partial) reification is fine.  It's the mapping that I cannot buy.

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Friday, 15 September 2000 08:53:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:44 GMT