RE: How to avoid that collections "break" relationships (ISSUE-41)

On Thursday, June 05, 2014 5:22 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 6/5/14 9:35 AM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> >> >As Gregg noted in a different mail [1] (I'm on a plane, so perhaps he
> >> >already responded himself in the meantime) using rdf:subject etc.
would mean
> >> >that the whole thing is an rdf:Statement:
> > Which does not need to be a bad thing.
> >
> >> >  I don't think we want to invoke Reification
> > But we are: if we say that
> > "this is the document consisting of triples with that subject and
predicate",
> > we are doing reification. No need to hide that.
> >
> +1
> 
> Markus:
> 
> I don't know how reification became a conflation of "bad thing" and "bad
> word".

All, this happened a couple of times now on this list. Could everyone try to
quote each other's mails accurately and also read them. I wrote this [1]:

[[[
As Gregg noted in a different mail [1] (I'm on a plane, so perhaps he
already responded himself in the meantime) using rdf:subject etc. would mean
that the whole thing is an rdf:Statement:

    "Don't thing rdf:subject works, as it's domain is rdf:Statement, and I
don't think
     we want to invoke Reification, so best stick with
hydra:property/subject."
]]]

So, I never said it is bad. Neither did Gregg.


> If denoting useful things with HTTP URIs is RDF based Linked Data 101,
> what's wrong with denoting an rdf:Statement ?

I think the problem is that RDF statements are defined to consist of three
elements: subject, predicate, and object [2]. In this case, however, we do
not have statements but in most cases just subject/property or
object/property pairs.


> Reification is actually very useful, and it does actually help
> developers and end-user comprehend RDF.

No one on this list ever doubted that.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-hydra/2014Jun/0007.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/#dfn-rdf-statement


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler