Re: reification vs. named graphs

Does the current standard not in fact allow graphs through the use of  
XML/RDF literals? If an RDF document contains a relation pointing to  
an RDF/XML literal, then that RDF/XML is playing somewhat the role of  
a graph, no? I mean it is opaque in the same way a graph is...

This is similar to the Davidson aproach of "believing that", such as  
it appears in

Jane believes that it is a beautiful day.

On one interpretation this can be analysed as the following to  
sentences:

Jane believes that: "It is a beautiful day."

Henry

On 14 Aug 2007, at 11:02, Michael Schneider wrote:
> Hi (btw, whats-your.name? ;-))!
>
>>>     G') everyone and his dog really love them for killing  
>>> reification.
>>>
>>> Well, this really looks like progress to me: After all, 6 of 7 of  
>>> the >>above nagging issues have finally been fixed by replacing  
>>> RDF reification >>with named graphs... :-)
>>
>> can you explain how to simulate reification using named graphs in  
>> >pseudocode?
>>
>> is there a wiki page explaining this?
>
> There once was a paper which well explained the named graph approach:
>
>     http://www.websemanticsjournal.org/ps/pub/2005-23
>
> It also included a section about the relationship between named  
> graphs and reification, and how a reification statement can be  
> expressed by a named graph (the idea was to use a singleton named  
> graph, if I correctly remember).
>
> Regrettably, I currently get timeouts when trying to access this  
> address.
>
> I suppose, the authors of this paper (e.g. Jeremy Carroll) can tell  
> you an alternative address, or even provide you with more current  
> information.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
> -- 
> Michael Schneider <m_schnei@gmx.de>
>

Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2007 09:50:17 UTC