- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 18:23:13 -0400
- To: David Wood <dpw@talis.com>
- Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 18:18 -0400, David Wood wrote: > 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... I think it's one of the candidate solutions for the GRAPHS use cases. My guess is it's unlikely to survive, but who knows. :-) Maybe I should move it from [Cleanup tasks] to [GRAPHS] ? -- Sandro
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 22:23:24 UTC