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

RE: N3 contexts vs RDF reification

From: Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:31:55 +0100 (BST)
To: Lee Jonas <lee.jonas@cakehouse.co.uk>
cc: "'Seth Russell'" <seth@robustai.net>, RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0104251116130.29021-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
> 
> Rather than an 'artificial key' for statements, what if the key were
> regarded as (p,s,o)?


<snip>

> I guess it comes down to the old 'statements vs statement occurrences'
> chestnut. [1]
> 
> [1] http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/bwm/papers/20001221-paper/  (section
> 2.5)
> 

It's annoying because this is a very useful approach. I've been storing
information about the trustworthiness of all statements in a different
database, and it makes for much more efficient queries if you can use
s,p,o as the key. I also think that in some cases it doesn't matter if
the information about one statement and another occurance of the same
statement get mixed together. 

For example, if you kow that someone's name is Dan from a secure
source, it deosn't matter if you also know that it is Dan from an
insecure source. But if you want to know that it was Dan on a particular
date from a particular secure source then you run into trouble. 

The problem is you may well want to do this if you are adding provenance
statements to the database yourself '_I_ found this information on this
date' '_I_ am uncertain about the truth of this information', rather
than dealing with information that other people have reified.

Libby
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2001 06:33:39 GMT

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