Re: PG mode and SA mode

Pat,

On Wed, 2019-09-18 at 15:01 -0700, Patrick J Hayes wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 2019, at 11:53 AM, Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se>
> > wrote:
> > [...]
> > In contrast, if RDF* is used in PG mode, our example RDF* triple
> > t would have to be converted into the following set of RDF
> > triples, which contains one additional triple (namely, the last
> > one in the following list):
> > 
> > (b, rdf:type, rdf:Statement)
> > (b, rdf:subject, s)
> > (b, rdf:predicate, p)
> > (b, rdf:object, o)
> > (b, p2, o2)
> > (s, p, o)
> 
> What, in this graph, identifies the bnode b with the last triple? In
> fact, why is it a bnode at all? Surely in this case, the subject of
> the reification triples should be an IRI which identifies/names the
> triple? But then how does this name get attached to its referent? It
> seems like we need some kind of naming convention here, something
> like
> 
> i: (s, p, o)
> (:i, p2, o2)

Okay, I could have used an IRI instead of a bnode in this example. Yet,
as you also point out, simply using an IRI in the reification triples
is not an answer to the latter question you are asking here. However, I
don't think that this is an issue of RDF*, but of the standard RDF
reification approach.

In fact, in RDF* there is no need for such a naming convention because,
when talking about a triple t'=(s,p,o) in some other triple t, the idea
of RDF* is to directly use the triple t' itself instead of using a name
for that triple.

t = ( (s,p,o), p2, o2 )

Olaf

> Pat Hayes

Received on Friday, 20 September 2019 08:57:17 UTC