W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > February 2005

Re: question about RDF/XML reification

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:54:04 +0100
To: "John M Lauck" <john@recaffeinated.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <opsltpwegbw5l938@saturne>

This seems like a reasonable approach. I am not sure if you need to use  
formal reification to do it though - describing a statement, and  
statements about it, by means of a blank node, may also make sense. I  
could make up an example when I have some more time if you would like (or  
you could look at EARL stuff for a while and see if it seems as obvious to  
you as it does to me what I mean :-).

There are various bits of discussion in the archive about "named graphs"  
which are along similar lines - you name a collection of statements, and  
then you can add other statements about the collection without  
(necessarily) having to conflate them. This way you can seperate out what  
the original statement was from what you have said about it...

Cheers

Chaals

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 14:43:43 -0500, John M Lauck <john@recaffeinated.com>  
wrote:

>
> Is it within RDF specs to use Reification for application specific  
> features.  For instance, I
> have a two nodes in a network running some application.  One application  
> modifies or reads in
> an RDF (or RDF schema) and makes some changes or adds comments by  
> reification, then sends it
> to the other node.  Is there a more formal usage of reification or would  
> this be along the
> correct lines?
>
> John M Lauck
>



-- 
Charles McCathieNevile - Vice Presidente - Fundacion Sidar
charles@sidar.org                      http://www.sidar.org
     (chaals is available for consulting at the moment)
Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 11:01:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:13 GMT