- From: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 12:48:27 +0200
- To: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
- CC: public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Phillip Lord wrote: >>>>>> "EJ" == Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch> writes: > > EJ> Just catching up on reading papers :-) > > EJ> <http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/8/S3/S2> > > EJ> "It is also useful to know who believes something and > EJ> why. However, there is no standard way of expressing such > EJ> information about a statement [...]" > > EJ> Reification? > > That's who, not why. The Gene Ontologies evidence codes are and > references are much closer. > > Also, I am not sure of the semantics of reification. Does it mean "I > made this statement", "I believe this statement" or "I am the person > responsible for the evidence on which this statement is based". All > three are independent I think. I assume what it means depends on the property that is used? In place of (or in addition to) the popular dc:creator you could introduce properties such as supportedBy, or whatnot. Arguably the lack of established properties for such information may be a bit of a problem, but the paper goes on to mention named graphs as a possible solution, so that's not the level we're talking at. In any case, no big deal, just another piece of evidence that reification is an ugly neglected step-child :-)
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2007 10:51:08 UTC