Gary just clarified that "deify" means "worship as a god"... fits, because I meant to accept a reified statement as truth. I was a bit worried about dropping the option to have nested frames/refification in BLD for RDF use cases. Actually, what I maent is that this is can be useful for unvealing reified statments in RDF. However, I just realized that RDF Reification/Deification doesn't need that feature, my error. An example. "Jos believes that Reification in BLD is a bad thing." RDF: :jos :believes _:s _:s rdf:subject :ReificationInBLD. _:s rdf:predicate rdf:type. _:s rdf:object :BadThing. Now I might want to write a RIF rule to get out all that Jos believes: ?X[?Y->?Z] :- (:jos[:believes->?S] and ?S[rdf:subject->:ReificationInBLD] and ?S[rdf:predicate->rdf:type] and ?S[rdf:object->:BadThing]) but... for that I don't need real reification, so it is also possible with the BLD without reified/nested statements. Obviously, this is not a RIF DL Rule. So, I am fine to drop reification in BLD, Axel -- Dr. Axel Polleres email: axel@polleres.net url: http://www.polleres.net/ rdfs:Resource owl:differentFrom xsd:anyURI .Received on Thursday, 21 February 2008 17:51:57 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:07:42 UTC