Re: An RDF Reification Syntax Idea

Michael,
Database+SW technologists,
Graph-based reasoning technologists,

Michael said:
> You cannot expect the database owner to store additional ordering 
> information within its database, because such an ordering is, as I pointed 
> out above, of no relevance from an RDF point of view

In looking over some RDF triple store libraries, I noticed some take a 
metadata-optional approach.  This notation may also take that approach.  A 
pure graph representation (three columns) could possibly discard the 
additional information in such a information-bearing URI and view the 
element as a node.  However, there may be possiblities for metadata 
(potentially requiring a primary key) beyond sourcing a triple to an author, 
and other conceivably discardable statements in graph merging.  So, this 
idea appears to fall into the metadata might be useful category.

Should the semantics in languages resembling OWL lead to complications in 
graph reasoning then I would offer it would just be something 'possible' in 
languages resembling RDF that shouldn't be done because of consequences to 
languages resembling OWL.  Let us say that triples cannot self-reference and 
that collections of triples can be described as containing a paradox, 
according to a reasoner, in the direction of considering graph reasoning 
with regard to this 'triple as a resource' idea.  Are there any graph-based 
reasoning complications in viewing that a node may identifiably (a node that 
does so is differentiable from a node that does not do so) map to a unique 
triple?


Cheers,
Adam

Received on Saturday, 3 February 2007 19:43:26 UTC