- From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 15:24:42 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>, public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
>>>>> "BP" == Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> writes: EJ> Reification? >> >> That's who, not why. BP> No, you can do both with reification. Well, you can do anything with anything:-) >> The Gene Ontologies evidence codes are and references are much >> closer. >> >> Also, I am not sure of the semantics of reification. BP> RDF reification has very little to no built in semantics. What BP> it provides is a standardized syntax. Ok. I presume it provided a standardised syntax for something, at least implied. Does it mean, then, when a triple is reified that the triple is in some way associated with this other resource? BP> However, all this *supports* your point. There *IS* no BP> standardized way to represent this sort of information. There BP> is a more or less standard (and widely loathed) hook/technique BP> upon which you could build a standard mechanism for representing BP> this sort of information. Yeah, thats my feeling. Reification is a start for doing this, and might provide a underpinning. Phil
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2007 14:28:08 UTC