- 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