W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2004

Re: Reification - whats best practice?

From: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:40:35 +0200
Message-ID: <412D85E3.8060807@isb-sib.ch>
To: Bob MacGregor <macgregor@isi.edu>
CC: "'RDF interesting groupe'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

Bob MacGregor wrote:
> It's rare that one statement captures what
> you want to say, whether its a time-dependent statement or a 
> probabillistic one, or whatever.

I believe single statement reification is quite appropriate for 
indicating why two resources are related.

Example:

   uniprot:P12345 rdf:type :Protein
   uniprot:P12345 :organism taxonomy:9606
   taxonomy:9606 :scientificName 'Homo sapiens'

Now I want to indicate what the evidence is that the protein occurs in 
the specified organism. How many statements does this affect? Exactly 1.


> there were no "use cases"

We have a lot of data that is backed by several sources.

Consider the following example:

   s1 p1 o1 : backed by a1 and a2
   s1 p2 o2 : backed by a1 and a3

If we were to use contexts for expressing this, there would have to be 
three different contexts (for statements backed a1, a2 and a3), and both 
statements would have to be duplicated into two different contexts. 
Correct? I imagine this approach would bloat the data far more than 
normal reification would...

(If you still have doubts, consider this: My spell checker suggested 
replacing 'reification' with 'deification' :-)
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 06:40:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:57 UTC