- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 14:06:31 +0100
- To: Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se>
- Cc: "public-rdf-star@w3.org" <public-rdf-star@w3.org>, William Waites <wwaites@inf.ed.ac.uk>
> On 2 Sep 2019, at 17:37, Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se> wrote: > > The reason why I defined RDF* in the way I did (i.e., allowing triples not only > in the subject position but also in the object position) was based on several > thoughts. > > One of which was along the same lines of William's comment. Now, regarding > your response to this comment, I don't think that introducing the possible > asymmetry regarding the use of triples within RDF* triples can be justified by > the fact that RDF has the same kind of asymmetry for literals. You appeal to a symmetry that is absent from RDF to justify a symmetry in RDF*. I appeal to parsimony. Make the minimal addition to RDF that addresses the use cases. If that minimal addition is asymmetric, so be it. RDF is asymmetric and it works. > Another thought was that I wanted RDF* to be as close as possible to RDF > reification. In RDF reification, the triples that talk about a reified triple may > contain as their object the IRI or bnode used for the reification of the reified > triple. For instance, the following is an RDF reification version of William's > example: > > :bob :believes _:b1 . > _:b1 rdf:type rdf:Statement . > _:b1 rdf:subject :moon . > _:b1 rdf:predicate :consistsOf . > _:b1 rdf:object :greenCheese . So you say you wanted RDF* to be close to RDF reification, and since RDF reification allows statements to appear in the object position, RDF* allows it too. But RDF* falls well short of the goal to be close to RDF reification. It cannot express any of the following (except by using RDF reification directly): - annotations of triples that are not in the graph - multiple instances of the same triple with different annotations - IRIs as statement identifiers I'm not saying that addressing any of these items in RDF* is important or even desirable, but I don't understand why triples-as-objects *was* important enough to include in RDF*, while these other items were not important enough. I can think of clear use cases for some of these items that are difficult to address with RDF* as it stands, while I have trouble thinking of a use case that requires triples-as-objects. Richard
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2019 13:07:07 UTC