RE: Interpretation of RDF reification

• From: McBride, Brian <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
• Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:48:56 -0000
• To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <larsga@ontopia.net>
• Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <DE62D3D0BDEF184FBB5089C7D387C3748BE9B4@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net>

> 
> I would be very careful about depending on "X represents the 
> stating of the statement".  This is not part of the formal 
> meaning of reification in RDF, but is, instead, at best the 
> informal, unsanctioned intent that applications might want to 
> put on reification.

I agree with Peter here who understands the formal semantics orders of
magnitude better than I.  The interpretation I was offering is informal
and reflects the motivation leading to the WG adopting the test case
confirming that s, p, and o are not sufficient to identify a reified
statement.

If you decided to use the reification vocabulary you should give careful
consideration to any use that is inconsistent with the informal
interpretation I have suggested and but bear in mind that the formal
semantics does not restrict interpretations in this way.

Brian
 

Received on Wednesday, 22 March 2006 22:49:13 UTC