Basic machinery for annotations

Most data is "light weight modelling", enough to get the job done, and I 
believe a common usage will be reification with no opinion as to 
"stated"/"describes".

The way to provide distinctions and richness in RDF is through modelling 
to provide additional details.

We already have basic machinery that does not involve inference, or 
integrity constraints (data maintenance), or mandated cardinality 
restrictions.

This should be the abstract data model of RDF.

It works for all RDF syntaxes and all ways of writing out RDF. Generated 
RDF does not often use the full richness of syntax shortcuts.

--
   :s :p :o {| a rdf:Stated |}
-->
   :s :p :o .
   _:b rdf:reifies <<(:s :p :o )>> .
   _:b rdf:Stated .
--

A different name may be better - this is only for illustration - but 
that's part of the point.

It requires nothing more of an RDF 1.2 or SPARQL 1.2 system than the 
baseline - triple terms (and, elsewhere, initial text direction) - and 
possibly some vocabulary.

It does not involve modifying the relationship between SPARQL BGP 
matching and simple entailment.

More sophisticated and focused systems can be written on top of this 
base by giving their own well-formedness conditions. c.f. RDF lists. 
They will emerge as needed and we can't prejudge them.

     Andy

Received on Thursday, 15 August 2024 11:41:16 UTC