- From: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni@wup.it>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:51:54 +0100
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
- CC: S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk <mailto:S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk?Subject=Re:%20Observations%20%28named%20graphs%2C%20blank%20node%20closures%29&In-Reply-To=%3C20050221092117.GD28229@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk%3E&References=%3C20050221092117.GD28229@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk%3E>> >Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 09:21:17 +0000 >To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org <mailto:public-rdf-dawg@w3.org?Subject=Re:%20Observations%20%28named%20graphs%2C%20blank%20node%20closures%29&In-Reply-To=%3C20050221092117.GD28229@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk%3E&References=%3C20050221092117.GD28229@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk%3E> > >On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 04:57:01 +0100, Giovanni Tummarello wrote: >> >> >> If i understand right, it is not the same as in my example >> >> In my example I was binding the reification node, something defined in >> the standard, and that can be used to define the context of that triple >> with ease (you got a node, you can attach metadata to it, simple). > >Ah, I see. Yes, I misunderstood I thought you were discussing >reification in the general sense, rather than RDF Reification. > >RDF Reification doesnt address the issue of the "source" of a triple, it >just provides a syntaxic shortcut to express a triple in its exploded >form, so it doesnt support what I personally require for triple >identification. > >- Steve I am not sure i understand you, in which sense it doesnt support what you personally require for triple identification? By RDF semantics the only thing that distinguish a triple by another is its very subjecty predicate and object that is why triplestores dont allow duplicates. Once you have a reification node you can attach source information. say both bob and alice say "giovanni bla bla" you just need a single giovanni bla bla triple , a single reification node and 2 statements that say "said by alice" "said by bob" and by rdf semantics it all works where works means that is you could split the single graph into the 2 original ones. Looking forward to her your specific case. Sincerely Giovanni
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 13:51:57 UTC