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

Re: Reification - whats best practice?

From: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 23:47:23 +0200
Message-ID: <4134F1EB.8010504@isb-sib.ch>
To: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@comcast.net>, rdf-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

Thomas B. Passin wrote:
> Statements about statements are crucial to a wide range of problems, 
> ones that keep popping up in this list.  That's why people want quads 
> and contexts.

I agree completely. My point is not that statements about statements are 
not important, but that they are likely to be of less interest than the 
statements themselves, and this should be taken into account.


> C'mon, get serious!  Every edge drawn in a graph is an individual edge. 
>   Try it yourself with pencil and paper. What is recursive about this 
> (ignore picky details, please)?

The recursion would arise if every edge was expected to be an 
individual. This must of course not be so, but if it isn't, then you 
need to decide in advance to which of your statements people may attach 
their own statements.


> Edge rdf:type Property-that-can-have-instances
> e1 rdf:type Edge
> subject1 e1 object1
> e1 me:statedOnDate "8-31-2004"
> e1 me:statedBy "T. B. Passin"

If, for example, I wanted to confirm that it was indeed you who said 
whatever, i.e. attach data to the last statement, I would have to use 
reification anyway?
Received on Tuesday, 31 August 2004 21:47:19 UTC

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