- From: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:29:30 -0500
- To: "'Joshua Tauberer'" <tauberer@for.net>, "'SWIG'" <semantic-web@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Joshua Tauberer > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 9:47 AM > To: 'SWIG' > Subject: Provenance as a first-class citizen > > > There's been some blogging on Planet RDF lately about provenance being a > first-class citizen in RDF (as Seth Ladd put it, at > (http://www.semergence.com/archives/2006/03/17/02/56/22/), or as John > Barstow wrote > (http://www.nzlinux.org.nz/blogs/2006/03/17/thinking-about-rdf-lite/), > to be able to have provenance without reification. > > I wanted to point out that this is merely an issue of serialization > convenience, and not an issue with RDF per se, in the bigger picture. > That is, provenance *requires* reification -- if you're going to assert > something arbitrary about a statement, the statement *has* to be denoted > by a Resource. Has anyone looked much at using anonymous predicates to deal with statements about statements? I've played around with it some in the past -- other than the serialization challenges it presents in some formats, it seems like a nice solution. E.g: :Sky [rdfs:subPropertyOf :hasColor; :says :Geoff] :Blue. This isn't really contrary to your assertion that all statements need handles in order to talk about them, since the anonymous predicate really becomes that. It just gives you a way to do it with two triples, rather than three or four. It also seems to have a pretty natural reading in that the graph ends up looking somewhat like you might diagram the actual sentence. Thoughts? -Geoff
Received on Friday, 17 March 2006 15:30:06 UTC