Re: a modest proposal - eliminate reifiers completely

Yes, but there appears to be an irreconcilable difference here.

The situation with quoted triples is actually no different from any other case 
where some pieces of information about a resource need to be kept together. 
For example:

:Liz :married-to :Dick .
:Liz :married-on "1964-03-15"^^xsd:date.
:Liz :married-to :Eddie .
:Liz :married-on "1959-05-12"^^xsd:date.

suffers from exactly the same problem as

<< :Liz :spouse :Dick >> :ceremony-location :Montreal.
<< :Liz :spouse :Dick >> :ceremony-date "1964-03-15"^^xsd:date.
<< :Liz :spouse :Dick >> :ceremony-location :Chobe.
<< :Liz :spouse :Dick >> :ceremony-date "1975-10-10"^^xsd:date .

In both cases there need to be extra resources added for accurate modelling.


On 4/12/24 10:00, Niklas Lindström wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 2:57 PM Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> <> wrote:
>> It seems that the WG is at an impasse.
> I think we're "just" not in agreement about whether the cardinality of
> rdf:reifies should conceptually be one or many. Some claim it makes
> sense, others claim that it deviates from the notion of a reified
> statement, taken as a "direct relationship instance" (which I presume
> is what an LPG edge is taken to "denote" in the OneGraph
> harmonization).
> It is an important question, since the motivation is to not add
> something which is then unnecessarily (or by default) used in
> nonsensical ways, or opens up for accidental complexity. This avoids
> necessary remodeling if new details crop up, and/or B) integration
> with data from other sources.
>> How about reverting to an old situation where there are no reifiers at all,
>> just quoted triples, and require users to stand off from the triple as required?
> That depends on whether or not the syntaxes allow them (or worse,
> encourage them) to be used as subjects (opening up for the seminal
> error). We came to the proposal of only using them with reifiers since
> that's when they work with use cases as-is. I.e., we have agreed that
> this (talking about bare triple terms) is not what use cases call for
> (not the least of which are the Amazon Neptune use cases with multiple
> edges [1]), and makes no sense if used as is in all but the most
> model-theoretical domains of discourse (including for token
> provenance; the most obvious kind of occurrences-not-types).
> /Niklas
> [1]:
>> peter

Received on Friday, 12 April 2024 14:44:14 UTC