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

Re: Reification - whats best practice?

From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:03:23 +0200
Message-ID: <412F06EB.2060302@virgilio.it>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Bob MacGregor <macgregor@isi.edu>, Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>, 'RDF interesting groupe' <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

Dan Brickley wrote:

>This is a bit of a hack, but in the noble tradition of adding a layer of
>indirection to solve a problem. Instead of talking directly about
>triples or a graph, you talk about (using whatever RDF vocab you find
>appropriate) a document that has that stuff written in it.

Hmm, how would you say the resource/representations divide lines up 
against named graphs? Is it safe to partially collapse the indirection 
and say the graph (in the document) is a representation of the resource? 
I suppose what I'm wondering about is how you would describe the 
indirection for reasoning purposes (without disappearing into a reified 
black hole).



Received on Friday, 27 August 2004 10:07:20 UTC

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