W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > May 2007

Re: Advancing translational research with the Semantic Web

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>
Message-ID: <uzm444zit.fsf@newcastle.ac.uk>

>>>>> "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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:26 UTC