Re: Reifying triples as unique URIs

On 8/7/06, Max Völkel <voelkel@fzi.de> wrote:

[handy background snipped]

> When the same "knowing" from a to c is occurring, use the same x.
> If a knows c in two different ways, use two different URIs.
>
> e.g.
> (a,x,c)
> (x, rdfs:subPropertyOf, foaf:knows)
> (a,y,c)
> (y, rdfs:subPropertyOf, foaf:knows)

Interesting idea, a separate URI per statement but nearer the bone
than reification. But I think it starts to fall down here:

> an then we can add
> x hasHappendenIn :Kindergarten
> and they got sepratated and years later they met again
> y hasHappendedIn :HighSchool
> - you get the example I hope.

Treating the properties as instances feels like a road to breakage -
presumably it won't be OWL DL for starters.

> What  do  you think about the idea to reify triples as unique property
> URIs? Has this been discussed elsewhere?

I can't remember seeing this particular approach.

If it did work, you would have to come up with a good way of minting a
lot of URIs, which reminds me - can we have bnodes for properties yet?
bnodes for (a-)named graphs?

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com

Received on Monday, 7 August 2006 15:18:11 UTC