- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 11:54:39 +0100
- To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Jeremy: > 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. I think the rdf:ID is a good idea ;-) and then just say <some-rdf-document#idea> eg:saidBy hp:Jeremy . and of course, an engine/application interpreting that sentence has to *dereference* the subject (but that's all determined by the verb semantics) -- Jos
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 05:56:35 UTC