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

RE: N3 contexts vs RDF reification

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 13:07:12 +0100
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010506130248.00a74ec0@joy.songbird.com>
To: Lee Jonas <lee.jonas@cakehouse.co.uk>
Cc: "'Seth Russell'" <seth@robustai.net>, RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
I'll observe that BOTH of these approaches can be mapped onto the 
underlying RDF core of triples, given suitable additional 
vocabulary.  Implementations don't have to use the triple model internally, 
as long as they can serialize to/from it.  This suggests it's too early to 
try and 'fix' this particular issue now, if ever.

#g
--

At 11:12 AM 4/25/01 +0100, Lee Jonas wrote:
> >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
>
>I like the concept, but does it mean n+1 tuples? e.g.:
>
>(stmtid1,p,s,o)
>(stmtid2,references,ctx1,stmtid)
>
>Also, you have to explicitly identify all statement occurrences
>consistently, even across documents - this could prove yet another problem
>for generating valid rdf.
>
>Rather than an 'artificial key' for statements, what if the key were
>regarded as (p,s,o)?
>
>then
>
>(c1,p1,s1,o1)
>(c2,p1,s1,o1)
>
>represents two contexts refering to the same statement.  The consumer of
>statements is free to 'import' them into their own contexts if they wish:
>(c3,p1,s1,o1).


------------
Graham Klyne
GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Monday, 7 May 2001 12:00:10 GMT

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