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

Re: Reification - whats best practice?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:08:55 -0400
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
Cc: S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040826130855.GE21708@homer.w3.org>

* Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com> [2004-08-26 15:57+0300]
> > > 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.
> 
> Right. I was not suggesting that a URI be overloaded to denote
> both a graph and a serialization of that graph (document).
> 
> I was simply suggesting that the approach Dan presented seems
> analogous to making assertions about the graph in which statements
> occur, from which one can infer things about those statements.

It's v similar, except I really do make statements about the document
rather than the things written in the document (whether conceived of as
a graph, or as a bunch of statements). So the document has properties
like checksum/hash, size in bytes, etc etc., as well as authorship.
Works for me. 

cheers,

Dan
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 13:08:55 UTC

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