Re: on Reification Semantics

Yoshio FUKUSHIGE wrote:
> Hi,
> I remember we discussed about the semantics
> accompanied with our reification syntax?
> (Am I wrong? Please excuse me)
> If my understanding is correct, the semantics of
> "reification" differs from RDF/XML and N3
> (in the latter it might have to be called "quoting?")

I believe that's right - graphs can be quoted.  Reification
(of statements) is the use of the reficiation vocabulary
rdf:subject, rdf:predicate, rdf:object.

> My question is which semantics do we accompany
> to our syntax (what was the resolution) ?
> Literal reading of the document leads to the answer 
> of saying: "we mean the former, for it's syntax sugar
> for RDF reification."

The syntact sugar is just for RDF reification.  Some people
use it and the syntax should be a help to them.  Applications
that do not use reification just won't use it.

> But our syntax is so close to N3 (by now), I wonder
> if we step forward (out?) to quoting.

The RDF dataset (GRAPH in other words) approaches this
for access to named graphs in the data.

I don't know what cwm (et al) does about matching quoted
graphs in a rule head.

> In case we should not do so, I think commenting 
> it(=the difference) in the doc is worth doing.

I'm not sure how to do this.  The document is about what
SPARQL/QL is, not what it is not.  Including things excluded
can lead to confusion in the reader.  A specification, to me,
is not a justification of the decisions, it is a description

> How do you think?
> Yoshio


Received on Thursday, 24 March 2005 14:08:22 UTC