Re: RDF Reification

Hi Nuno

I assume your question is about describing trust relationships with triples
rather than implementing a triple store.

Reification is not suitable for quoting but I see no reason not to use it to
specify qualities of an asserted friendship relationship. Having a class
:Friendship would be the more explicit approach, your trust property would
have domain :Friendship rather than rdf:Statement making the ontology easier
to understand. However having a friendship relationship expressed with a
single statement, not only makes some sparql queries simpler but also
potentially (if the individuals have lots of friend) much more performant,
if the triple store has optimization for reification also accessing the
additional properties of the friendship is faster than with the
Friendship-class approach.

Reto

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Nuno Luz <nuno.maluz@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am currently implementing a triple store and RDF reification seems to be
> just the thing i need right now. The problem is that i read that it's bad
> practice. I haven't found much information about why it's bad practice, so i
> was wondering if you could enlighten me a bit on the matter :-)
>
> Since i need to have trust values for friendship relations i thought of
> creating a class that represents the statement, like Friendship, but it just
> seems the same as reification. Besides, SPARQL queries become really ugly.
>
> I am still new in the area so i appreciate any help and hints you can give.
>
>
> Regards,
> Nuno Luz
>