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

Re: Reification: naive question

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:02:18 -0800
Message-ID: <009101c1af27$a7578280$657ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "Enrico Franconi" <franconi@cs.man.ac.uk>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
From: "Enrico Franconi" <franconi@cs.man.ac.uk>

> Sorry if this question looks naive, or if you had on this already a
> big discussion in the past (which is likely anyway).
> Suppose that a unique id is associated to each triple. This could be
> either implicit (i.e., generated internally like OIDs in O-O data
> models) or explicit (if you want to mention it later).
> The additional (explicit) ID serves as a reference in other triples
> willing to state something on it (as a foreign key). I understand that
> this is the spirit of reification.

> For the triples where the ID is implicit, the syntax wouldn't change,
> and the semantics could be the standard MT already devised.
> If the current MT wants to ignore reification (as it correctly does),
> then it should just ignore the presence of those additional IDs. This
> makes a lot of sense since the semantics of reification is still
> unclear, and a lot of work should be done. A future extension of the
> MT (based supposedly on HOL) could then take IDs into account.
> This is more or less in the spirit of Nejdl's proposal.
> - do you have the feeling that this would solve all the problems (on
>   expressiveness and on semantic clarity) of reification?  [please,
>   note the naivete of the question :-)]
> - Would this be an impossible addition to the rdf standard syntax?

Actually there is the idAttr allowable on a property element .. see section
D production 6.12 of the revised syntax:
But I'm not sure whether it is practical to used that for your purpose.

But isn't it better just to keep piling more and more restraints on a
reified statement untill it can only be satisfied by one instance of the
triple?  See my example at the bottom of the following post:


Seth Russell
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 11:05:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:37 UTC