- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:51:43 +0100
- To: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
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