W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > February 2002

Re: reification test case

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 13:47:31 -0800
Message-ID: <00fc01c1adc5$8c6e83a0$657ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
From: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>

> Break what running aps? There is no notion of 'context' in RDF1.0 in
> any case, so I fail to see how it could possibly break any app that
> was using the current spec.

Hopefully somebody else can supply these.

> What kind of app would need multiple reifications of a triple in the
> same graph?

Any application that aggregates people's comments about propositions.  In
fact this was the origninal test case that was presented way back ~ 1999 in
the rdf-interest group - if i get a chance I'll try to find that original
test case.

>It would be fine to give the reification a URI by some
> external naming convention, and then have multiple RDF descriptions
> referring to it. Would that suffice?

Yes.

> Any decision we take will render SOME future apps impossible, by the way.

If the WG chooses to allow distinct multiple descriptions of RDF triples,
what specific future apps would become impossible?

> The WG has a chartered responsibility to only make changes that are
> required in order to fix problems, not to design a perfect RDF.
> (There may be an RDF 2.0 later, designed by a diffferent WG.) . Its
> not obvious to me that having one reification per triple constitutes
> a fatal problem.

It breaks aggregation of annotations of triples.

Seth Russell
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 16:50:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:41 GMT