Re: rdf:Statement and graphs

Some RDF databases have been internally using 5 elements for a long time,
to give each quad a unique "statement" identifier, while using the 4th
element as a non-unique resource to aggregate simple triples into graphs.

Peter

On 4 May 2013 22:16, Bo Ferri <zazi@smiy.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> some time ago I made a proposal that one could use the 4th element in an
> n-quad like serialisation for statement identifier to make statement
> reification a bit more readable ;) [1]
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Bo
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-rdf-comments/**
> 2011Jan/0001.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2011Jan/0001.html>
>
>
> On 5/4/2013 1:35 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>> On 5/3/13 7:07 AM, Jürgen Jakobitsch SWC wrote:
>>
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> is there a way to express that a rdf:Statement belongs to a certain
>>> graph?
>>>
>>> i'm asking with respect to changesSets [1] where i want to add the given
>>> statement to one or more specified graphs.
>>>
>>> if there's no best practice, issue or the like i would subclass
>>> rdf:Statement if there's nothing i'm missing out..
>>>
>>> wkr jürgen
>>>
>>> [1] http://docs.api.talis.com/**getting-started/changesets<http://docs.api.talis.com/getting-started/changesets>
>>>
>>>
>> Personally, I see a containment oriented relation as an acceptable
>> mechanism for  expressing how a statement and a named graph are
>> associated. I suspect, historically, folks have stayed away from
>> expressing this important association due to the amount of triples it
>> generates.
>>
>> <#SomeGraphIRI>
>> :contains <#SomeStamentIRI> .
>>
>> <#SomeStatementIRI>
>> a rdf:Statement;
>> rdf:subject <#SomeStatementSubjectIRI>;
>> rdf:predicate <#SomeStatementPredicateIRI>;
>> rdf:object <#SomeStatementObjectIRI>.
>>
>> Statement reification is useful.  We are now getting to the point where
>> real-world issues are bringing its utility to the fore  :-)
>>
>>
>
>