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

Re: N3 contexts vs RDF reification

From: Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:36:00 +0300 (EEST)
To: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
cc: RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.30.0104251324430.24408-100000@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Seth Russell wrote:

>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]. [...] 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.

I.e., I want to make a proposition about a whole lot of triples I didn't
write. They come from different sources. I need to create my own context to
do this.

>2) It allows for the same proposition (triple) to exist in multiple (even
>disjoint) contexts - also a situation that holds in the real world.

My friend wants to assert something as well. He needs to create his own
context.

>3) It keeps context in the labeled directed graph data model rather than
>forcing us to adapt a different mathematical structure in mid stream.

Plus, it sort of makes the RDF model closed. No need to rely on external
means of grouping and identifying statements to refer to them, but just the
ID one.

>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.

In these two cases, what *exactly* happens to multiple reification? I mean,
it's clear that this is possible by referring to contexts containing
statements referring to other contexts, but are there any further
foreseeable complications?

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

When I first leafed through M&S, I actually inferred this precise mechanism
was present. It took a long while to reprogram myself to think of the
(considerably more heavy-weight, and less manageable) reification as the way
to go. Excellent, I say.

Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy@iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111
student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2001 06:36:04 GMT

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