Re: Interpretation of RDF reification

From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@ontopia.net>
Subject: Re: Interpretation of RDF reification
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:00:46 +0100

> 
> 
> * Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> >
> > I'm afraid that the answer to your question is a very strong,  
> > "NEITHER".
> 
> That's certainly unexpected. I'm glad I asked.
> 
> > *An* RDF node (there can be more than one!) that reifies the statement
> >
> > 	ex:winston ex:married-to ex:clementine
> >
> > i.e., _:r in
> >
> > 	_:r rdf:type rdf:Statement .
> > 	_:r rdf:subject ex:winston .
> > 	_:r rdf:predicate ex:married-to .
> > 	_:r rdf:object ex:clementine .
> >
> > represents nothing more than an element of the domain of discourse  
> > that is
> > related to four other elements of the domain of discourse in the  
> > obvious
> > way.
> 
> Hmmmm. That's somewhat obscure to me. What is the obvious way?

Well, simply that it is related via the property extension of rdf:type to
the denotation of rdf:Statement, via that of rdf:subject to that of
ex:winston, ....

> > See  http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#Reif for more information on RDF
> > reification.
> 
> I've tried. I clearly didn't succeed.

Well, RDF Semantics *is* the definitive word on what RDF means.  The
section on reification includes a fair bit of "hope" for the future, but if
you ignore that, then you are left with ... nothing beyond the standard
meaning of the four triples above.

> --
> Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian               http://www.ontopia.net
> +47 98 21 55 50                             http://www.garshol.priv.no

peter

Received on Wednesday, 22 March 2006 21:16:21 UTC