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

Re: abstract model and reification

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:07:35 -0700
Message-ID: <39C69226.15178128@robustai.net>
To: "RDF Interest (E-mail)" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Graham Klyne wrote:

>    [A] --P-------------> [B]
>    [S] --rdf:type------> [rdf:Statement]
>    [S] --rdf:property--> [P]
> ?  Here, S may or may not be a reification of [A] --P--> [B].  But from its
> type, it clearly represents _some_ reified statement.

Seems to me that would represent the reification of all arcs labeled with "P".

I'm having troubles following this discussion on reification because I haven't
found a write up on the basic motivation for reification in the RDF model.   In
particular im trying to find answers to the following questions:
1) Where is it necessary to reify and where not?
2) If we want to say something about a statement that is asserted in some
context, why cant we just designate it's id as an object (see [1])?
3) If all RDF statements (reified or not) are contained in some context, then
why isn't that context alone sufficient to disambiguify any statement about
another statement?
4) Where are there some concrete examples to motivate all of the above?

[1] http://robustai.net/ai/Oedipus.htm

topic: Seth Russell
isa: human
needs help with: http://RobustAI.net/MyNetwork/index.html
working on: access://MyKB
claims: Http://RobustAi.net/Ai/Conjecture.htm
Received on Monday, 18 September 2000 18:00:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:32 UTC