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

Re: Using rdf reification to nest statements in N3 like contexts

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 06:23:15 -0800
Message-ID: <001001c1cc2c$f2c04a00$657ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: "RDFIG" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Re:  http://www.ninebynine.org/RDFNotes/UsingContextsWithRDF.html

Where you say:
   [[Using this approach, the number of triples will increase
   exponentially with he depth of context nesting.]]

From: "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>

> With the first level of nesting, I agree that the number of triples for N
> statements increases to 4N.
> But with the next level of nesting, in the framework I was describing,
> of those 4N triples itself becomes 4-fold, for a total, of 16N.  Next
> of nesting gives 64N.  etc.

No, no,  no !!!   Mathematically, nesting cannot work that way.  Certainly a
set, the quintessential  container,  doesn't work that way.   The act of
putting a RDF triple in a container must reify it only because that's the
only way you can deal with it as an object; and containing something is
dealing with it as an object.  Once contained, anything inside the container
becomes *opaque* to everything outside that container.  So nothing you do to
a container (for example pointing to it from somewhere else, or containing
it again) can ever change whatever it is inside that container.   You've got
it that containing a container actually changes (in some bizarre way) what's
inside that container.

If the MT says that is the way RDF container's work, then the MT should be
changed ... imho, of course.

... or have I misunderstood ?

This train has been transfered from rdf-comments as per Brian's request, see
prior history there:

Seth Russell
Received on Friday, 15 March 2002 09:27:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:39 UTC