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

RE: Reification - whats best practice?

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:05:12 +0300
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A50ADC97@trebe051.ntc.nokia.com>
To: <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>, <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of ext Eric Jain
> Sent: 26 August, 2004 13:16
> To: Dave Beckett
> Cc: 'RDF interesting groupe'
> Subject: Re: Reification - whats best practice?
> > Quads are also a bad standard since they
> > mean different things to different people; i.e. not a standard.
> That's precisely why they need to be standardized, to ensure 
> that they 
> mean the same things to different people :-)


And my recommendation would be that the fourth component of 
a quad would be a graph name (which also would be optional).

Named graphs are a generic extension which can be very strongly
grounded in the RDF MT (since most of what you need is already
there), and provide for all of the other use cases employing
quads; and simply by defining the appropriate vocabularies.

In a sense, it's fair to argue that named graphs are not an
extension at all, since as resources, their definition is
central to the RDF MT, and any resource can be denoted by
URI, so if you're going to have quads rather than triples,
named graphs are the option which "extend" RDF the least.

Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 13:06:08 UTC

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