W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Partial and Overspecified Reifications in RDF

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 03:15:39 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=y0qqWmQB_38Xzj38o=3kocvMSBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Kolas <dkolas@bbn.com>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Dave Kolas <dkolas@bbn.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am currently adding support for efficient storage and retrieval of
> reifications to our triple-store Parliament.
>
> I am currently concerned about how the implementation will handle partial
> reifications, i.e,:
>
> ex:Stmt1 a rdf:Statement;
>   rdf:subject ex:A;
>   rdf:predicate ex:B .
>
> and how it will handle overspecified reifications:
>
> ex:Stmt1 a rdf:Statement;
>   rdf:subject ex:A;
>   rdf:predicate ex:B ;
>   rdf:object ex:C ;
>   rdf:object ex:D .
>
> The RDF specification does not seem to say whether this is a valid use of
> the reification vocabulary.
>

It is. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#Reif says: "the reification vocabulary
has no effective semantic constraints on it, other than those that apply to
an rdf-interpretation <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#rdfinterpdef>"

Thus I am wondering whether A) this is considered valid RDF, and B) if there
> any reasonable use cases for these constructs.
>

A) yes
B) I have not seen any

Regards,
Alan


>
> I appreciate any input you might have.
>
> Thanks,
> --Dave--
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 07:16:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:25 UTC