- From: Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net>
- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:48:06 +0100
- To: "Lars Marius Garshol" <larsga@ontopia.net>
- Cc: "RDFTM editors" <rdftm@ontopia.net>, "SWBPD list" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
[Regarding the issue of whether reification has the same semantics in Topic Maps and RDF] * Lars Marius Garshol | | I finally got round to sending that email, and this has now | been cleared up... | | If you read | | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2006Mar/0161.html | | first, and then | | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2006Mar/0168.html | | I think you should know what you need to. So it is as I suspected. Really interesting thread with some interesting implications, by the way. Nice that we "brightened an otherwise dull evening" for Brian, as well! | What remains is to figure out how to express TM reification if we | can't just use normal RDF reification. I've been thinking about that. How about if we do EXACTLY as currently proposed, EXCEPT that we use a class in the RDFTM vocabulary instead of rdf:Statement? In other words, instead of {puccini, bio:dateOfBirth, [[1858-12-22]]} ~puccini-birthdate translating to: _puccini-birthdate rdf:type rdf:Statement ; rdf:subject _puccini ; rdf:predicate bio:dateOfBirth ; rdf:object "1858-12-22" . as currently proposed in the Section 3.8 of the Guidelines (http://www.ontopia.net/work/guidelines.html#Reification), it translates to _puccini-birthdate rdf:type rdftm:Relationship ; rdf:subject _puccini ; rdf:predicate bio:dateOfBirth ; rdf:object "1858-12-22" . The only difference being in the value of the rdf:type property. Steve -- Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net> Chief Strategy Officer, Ontopia Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 Coordinator, W3C RDF/TM Task Force Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps 1.0)
Received on Thursday, 23 March 2006 16:48:10 UTC