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

[OT] permafred (Re: Reification - whats best practice?

From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:16:53 +0200
Message-ID: <412F0A15.9060308@virgilio.it>
To: danny.ayers@gmail.com
CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Bob MacGregor <macgregor@isi.edu>, Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>, 'RDF interesting groupe' <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

I should have known better to post before checking for follow-ups - what 
a thread!

So www-rdf-interest has re-energised, and reification/contexts/quads is 
the One True Permathread.

Danny Ayers wrote:

> 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).
> Cheers,
> Danny.


Received on Friday, 27 August 2004 10:20:56 UTC

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