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

Re: Reification - whats best practice?

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:53:33 +0100
To: Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>
Cc: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>, Bob MacGregor <macgregor@isi.edu>, "'RDF interesting groupe'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, danbri@w3.org
Message-Id: <20040826105333.42483bbd@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:56:26 +0200, Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com> wrote:

> Reification is a bad standard, so people flee from it into quads.

My Redland system provides neither reification or quads, keeping
RDF as a triple based system but adding support for data aggregation
of triples internally[1],[2].   Quads are also a bad standard since they
mean different things to different people; i.e. not a standard.

> ...  There 
> is no RDF/XML syntax that is usable with Reification.

You could consider N3 formulae {} as a form of reification.

> *I think about joining DAWG :-)
> *I want real life examples and real live RDF that fits real life use cases.

See the DAWG use cases http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/
and send us comments

[1] http://www.redland.opensource.ac.uk/notes/contexts.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/large_scale_demo/
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 09:55:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:52 UTC