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

Re: Reification - whats best practice?

From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:59:40 +0100
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040826095940.GC1248@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:59:02 +0100, Hamish Harvey wrote:
> 
> Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> >    In my published RDF files, I just assert things about the RDF/XML
> >    serialized document. Eg. that I'm its dc:creator or foaf:maker. I
> >    also like using a wot:assurance property to relate it to the
> >    output of the PGP/GPG signing process.
> >
> >If I'm understanding you right Dan, your approach seems to be
> >the same, in essence, as named graphs, where one makes statements
> >about the graph, which allows one to infer things about the 
> >statements within that graph.
> > 
> >
> 
> Isn't it the same in essence, except for the fact that it's polluting? 
> When you start doing that it becomes impossible to differentiate between 
> statements about the *graph* and statements about the *rdf document*.

Only if they have the same URI. You can differentiate graphs with anything
(say a bNode), and use some property to link the graph to the document
URI.

- Steve
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 09:59:47 UTC

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