W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > July 2002

RE: Associations in RDF

From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 23:05:58 +0100
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000101c23102$cbb07530$887ba8c0@mitchum>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sampo Syreeni
>
> I just cannot see why this is. If you want a simple, binary
> relation, you can declare it quite nicely. Separately, if 
> that pleases you. If you want to speak about the relation, 
> you may as well reify its instances, giving them URI's, and 
> talk about them. If you want n-aries, you sorta-reify those 
> instead, and talk about them. It's all something RDFS does 
> just fine, when you think about it.

That's maybe the first use of RDF reification that I've heard of that
sounds like reification as practised in logic, as opposed to whatever
the understanding de jour of RDF reification happens to be. Any example
I've seen of reification in logic/KR has been to allow predicates to be
used as objects, for example to allow assertions to be made about a
category instead of the members of the category (RDF reification seems
to want to make statements about individual statements, such as we might
need for provenance). 

To do this reification of a property, my understanding is we need rules
of inference, or a 'holds' relation which can be inferred for a given
relation. As far as I know RDF/S isn't capable of describing that.
Looking at your relations ontology (1) I /think/ log:implies is being
used to get around this. Wrong?

regards,
Bill de hÓra

(1) <http://www.helsinki.fi/~ssyreeni/shared/meta/relations>
Received on Sunday, 21 July 2002 18:07:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:54 GMT