W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2001

Re: N3 contexts vs RDF reification

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:55:42 -0700
Message-ID: <005301c0ccdf$699c5400$b17ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "RDF-IG" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "Lee Jonas" <lee.jonas@cakehouse.co.uk>
From: "Lee Jonas" <lee.jonas@cakehouse.co.uk>

> Furthermore, statements are always translated into quadruples: the current
> (p,s,o) triple plus the uri of the containing context - i.e. (c,p,s,o);

There is a competing suggestion to use a statement id in the quadruple
instead of context uri, like  (id,p,s,o) ... see diagram [1]. The context
URI would then identify a context description (external to the triples)
which would collect statements in various contexts.  The technique is also
easily implemented with a relational database.

This method has three distinct advantages:

1) It models the real world where the context of a proposition is in the eye
of the beholder and not a property of the proposition.
2) It allows for the same proposition (triple) to exist in multiple (even
disjoint) contexts - also a situation that holds in the real world.
3) It keeps context in the labeled directed graph data model rather than
forcing us to adapt a different mathematical structure in mid stream.

I think that all the advantages you ascribe to the (c,p,s,o) technique like
reification can also be attributed to the (id,p,s,o) technique see [2], but
with the added benefits above.

This was suggested by Graham Klyne in his recent paper [3] and is the basis
of my work in progress.

[1] http://robustai.net/mentography/contexts.gif
[2] http://robustai.net/mentography/reification.gif
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Mar/0021.html

Seth Russell
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2001 12:59:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:49 GMT