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 22:02:06 +0300
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A50A1C35@trebe051.ntc.nokia.com>
To: <david.harvey@bristol.ac.uk>, <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 Hamish Harvey
> Sent: 26 August, 2004 19:11
> To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Reification - whats best practice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --On 26 August 2004 18:59 +0300 Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> > Pat Hayes and Jeremy Carroll can probably provide some
> > arguments with more "meat" (there were some MT issues
> > which made things hairy), but one reason why bnodes are
> > disallowed as graph namess is because bnodes are graph-specific,
> > and the intention is that graph names are inter-graph in,
> > scope i.e. global. Thus statements about a particular graph
> > can occur in some other graph, which would preclude (in
> > that case at least) using a bnode.
> 
> Why should that be an intention? Why can't the modeller 
> decide whether a 
> graph name is inter-graph or not? Why should it be any less 
> desirable to 
> have bnode named graphs than it is to have bnodes at all?
> 
> I can imagine that MT problems might provide a substantive 
> reason to avoid 
> it, but the argument that they are supposed to be inter-graph 
> sounds to me 
> like they aren't allowed "because they aren't".

Well, I'm not a mathematician. I'm aware of difficult
issues in reconciling a MT for named graphs with the 
RDF MT if anonymous nodes can be used to denote graphs.

I'll defer to the mathematicians to clarify those issues.

Patrick
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 19:02:37 UTC

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