- From: David Wood <dpw@talis.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 18:18:02 -0400
- To: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Apr 7, 2011, at 18:07, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > > RDF-ISSUE-25 (Deprecate Reification): Should we deprecate (RDF 2004) reification? [Cleanup tasks] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/25 > > Raised by: Sandro Hawke > On product: Cleanup tasks > > > The RDF 1999 and 2004 Recommendations include vocabulary and syntax > (in RDF/XML) for RDF "reification". The vocabulary is rdf:Statement, > rdf:subject, rdf:predicate, and rdf:object; the syntax is rdf:ID used > on a property element. > > Although this feature is sometimes used in practice, some experts > advise data providers to avoid it. It has no syntactic support in > RDFa or Turtle. Should the WG align with this advice and say this > feature is only to be use for backward compatibility? (That is, > RDF/XML parsers must continue to support the syntax, and libraries > should allow applications to use the features to interoperate with > legacy RDF systems.) > > Note that many or all of the use cases of reification are also uses > cases for [GRAPHS]. The decision about the fate of reificiation is > connected with what happens with [GRAPHS]. Might reification undergo a renaissance when provenance comes back into fashion? Couldn't we consider reification a degenerate case of a named graph? We might want to go slowly on this one... Regards, Dave > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/#reification > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/RDF_Core_Work_Items#Data_Model_Issues > > > >
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 22:18:38 UTC