W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2003

Re: [jena-dev] Re: Use cases for Reification in RDF Triplestores

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 10:28:05 -0800
Message-ID: <3E1DBF35.2060105@robustai.net>
To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: jena-dev@yahoogroups.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, Bob MacGregor <macgregor@isi.edu>

Dave Reynolds wrote:

>As I pointed out in my earlier message, the RDF core working group has endorsed
>position (1) that reified statements are statings. Personally, I agree with you
>that a 1-1 correspondence between statements and their reifications would be
>better but that is not the decision and so is not the proposed standard. You may
>wish to raise this on rdf-comments.
>
Yes, the WG has decided, nodes of rdf:type rdf:Statement *are* statings, 
I think you guys should accept that and move on.   Of course if you want 
to discuss a node that represents a Platonic triple, then there is 
nothing preventing you from describing such a thing as ( 
_:tHASHofTRIPLE, rdf:type, jena:Triple ).   But I really don't know any 
practical case where we would want to say something about a 
jena:Triple.   Do you?

>I presently have no idea how
>to implement a reification API efficiently in an RDB system. 
>
You could cover all bases in a record with 5 fields:  serial, subject, 
property, object, model.   Allow the model to be identified as a blank 
node identifier, or a Uri.  Give a serial number to each stating (triple 
X model) in the form s12345.   Now you can have a record like <98765, 
_:s12345, rdf:type, rdf:Statement, _:m12>.   So in any model you can 
describe statings, you can describe triples, and you can describe models 
- just put the appropriate URI or blank node identifier in the subject 
slot.  

Seth Russell
http://radio.weblogs.com/0113759/
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2003 13:28:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:57 GMT