- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:04:30 -0000
- To: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Jos: > I would propose to drop reification! > so proposal to drop its sentences in 5.5, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12 and 5.14 > as well as "5.26 Reification Rules" Mike Dean posted an interesting provenance example to webont: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2001Dec/0102.html My take on this was not - wow a use case for reification, but ... This use case needs provenance. Provenance is an important part of the information; hence the provenance model should be an *explicit part* of the overall schema/ontology for the information being collected. i.e. RDF reification can be seen as a one size fits all solution for provenance, which history shows as having fitted hardly anyone. A better way, which is more in tune with the extremely open undogmatic nature of the semantic web, is to allow many different schemata for provenance to flourish and not to give preference to any one of them. I think we should not *drop* reification, just not encourage it. We can treat reification as a purely syntactic macro, turning an rdf:ID on a property element into the reification quad. We could offer no model theory, and no primer. It is there simply as a backward compatibility thing. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 05:08:00 UTC