Re: [External] : example showing why rdf:state is essential

I support the comments of Gregg Kellogg and provide the following extra 
information on this stance on triple terms and reification.


I found the original pair of examples completely unconvincing.  The first 
example has four different rdf:reifies triples provding nothing about 
provenance or assertive force.   But even if these triples were added, for 
example via

:stint1 prov:source :workhistory .
:stint1 prov:reliability :high .
...
:stint4 prov:source :alice .
:stint4 prov:reliability :low .

there is nothing to say that :stint4 is in any way asserting anything just 
because the triple it reifies is present in the graph.  To say otherwise is a 
complete misreading of the meaning of rdf:reifies, which was only created to 
provide an RDF-blessed predicate for the nearly-always-required-standoff when 
using triple triples.

Using a second predicate that has no semantics does nothing to change the 
situation.  Changing the name from rdf:reifies also does nothing to change the 
situation.  The proposed rdf:id oes have the unfortunate connotation of being 
an identifier, which clashes with the many-to-many characteristic of rdf:reifies.

Adding assertional force information to provenance nodes *does* provide 
information about which provenance node supports the presence of triple in the 
graph whether this is done via a property like prov:reliability or a class 
like prov:Unreliable.


None of this affects the baseline, which does not touch on provenance or 
assertional force.


peter

Received on Saturday, 17 August 2024 17:12:23 UTC