Re: A single reifier can reify more than one triple term

Wouldn't a better approach be something like:

Person:Enrico a Person: ;
       Person:hasMarriage [
              a Marriage: ;
              Marriage:location Location:Rome ;
              Marriage:startDate Year:1962 ;
              Marriage:to Person:Serafina ;
              ] ;
.

(I'm using the class names as prefixes here simply to make it obvious what
these resource interfaces are).

The one area where I can see this working with reifiers is when you want to
connect existing entities:

<< Marriage:m1 | Person:Enrico Person:married  Person:Serafina >>
      Marriage:child Person:Paolo, Person:Linetta ;
      Marriage:location Location:Rome ;
      Marriage:startDate Year:1962 ;
      Marriage:endDate Year:1971 ;
      .

<< Marriage:m2 | Person:Enrico Person:married  Person:Elizabetta>>
      Marriage:child Person:Antonio ;
      Marriage:location Location:Venice ;
      Marriage:startDate Year:1973 ;
      Marriage:endDate Year:1994 ;
      .









      .


*Kurt Cagle*
Editor in Chief
The Cagle Report
kurt.cagle@gmail.com
443-837-8725 <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B14438378725>


On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 12:42 AM Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
wrote:

> >> << :b1 | :enrico :married-in :rome >> :date 1962 .
> >> << :b1 | :enrico :married-on 1962 >> :location :rome .
> >> << :b1 | :enrico :married-in :rome >> :location :rome .
> >> << :b1 | :enrico :married-on 1962 >> :date 1962 .
> >
> > It helps with the issue of naming, but it doesn’t address the asymmetry.
> Now Enrico has married-in and married-on properties, and the reification
> has date and location properties. Why is this a good model of properties
> that all come from the same relation where they are all properties of birth
> certificates?
>
> They are not: has married-in and married-on have domain person, while date
> and location have domain birth certificate. They NEED to be distinct
> properties, and depending on what are you talking about (people or birth
> certificates) you use the former of the latter.
>
> > And I still think this is a fundamental problem with this example: “two
> departments decide to expose this data as LOD, but in different ways.” That
> would be one thing if they were each exposing LOD using local identifiers,
> but they’ve both used the universal identifiers (b1, b2, …) for the
> reification in incompatible ways.
>
> They are not incompatible.
> You are assuming that organisations are rational entities that structure
> their data in a syntactically uniform and consistent way all over the
> world. The fact that this assumption is not true is witnessed by the mess
> that enterprises have in doing data integration, which is the main raison
> d’être of semantic web technologies: deal with syntactically different ways
> of representing semantically equivalent information.
>
> —e.