Re: Reification - whats best practice?

Danny,

Danny Ayers wrote:

> Bob MacGregor wrote:
>
>> So where is the controversy?  Possibly is has to do with the problem 
>> of nested contexts.  The
>> most general solutions allow contexts to contain other contexts.  If 
>> the named graph solution
>> allows one to apply a name to a subgraph of another graph, then it is 
>> supporting exactly the same kind of
>> nesting.  The named document solution does not support nesting.
>
> Sorry, could you clarify that last point - if you can refer to a graph 
> through the URI of the container document, then surely can't that URI 
> be used in another graph/document?

yes, but I'm getting at a different issue:

If you allow for a containment relation between graphs (say Graph C is 
the union of graphs A and B), then contexts
(named containers) can be arranged into a lattice, according to the 
containment relation.  That induces an inheritance
relation between A and C, and between B and C (e.g., all metastatements 
made about C automatically apply to A and B).
That implies a new (to RDF) form of inference.

Contexts based only on SOURCE don't have containment relations, so they 
are much simpler to implement.

Cheers, Bob