- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 18:03:17 -0400
- To: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Graham Klyne wrote: > > At 06:06 PM 6/15/01 +0100, Brian McBride wrote: > >RDFCore: A base abstract syntax and a semantics for it. The abstract syntax > >is equivalent to n-triple (can n-triple be that abstract syntax). Nothing > >more - does not include type, containers, reification. > > [...] > > >Vocabularies (aka standard library): Reification and containers > > I think that, to serve its intended purpose, that "reification" will need > to be handled in the core. A message I have taken from the RDF-logic > discussion that it is really an abstract syntactic device to allow us to > express statement "nesting" (i.e. use without assertion). I'm of two (maybe more!) minds about this. The message *I* took from the RDF-logic discussion was that RDF would be improved if reification (as currently provided, which is what I mean here by "reification") were deleted. I agree there was something of a conclusion that reification provided a way to express a statement without asserting it (essentially, by providing the more primitive statements out of which the original statement could be constructed by some processor), and that this could be used to express nesting, statement attribution (provenance), and maybe some other things [I've noted before my opinion that the M&S suggests at least two distinct uses for reification, which I don't think are necessarily consistent]. However, I don't think anyone can read the RDF-logic archives and conclude that anyone thought that reification was a very good way of expressing any of these things. For nesting, I'm inclined toward Brian's S-expression suggestion [some straightforward nesting syntax]. Quoting can be done in a similarly straightforward way. On the other hand, for *RDF* (not reification) to serve [what *I* think is] its intended purpose, I think we need to provide some guidance to people as to how they should express provenance information, using whatever facilities remain in RDF 1.0 when we get through with it. It seems to me the default is to think of this (as with other "uses") as being at the Vocabulary level, work out the details on how to do it, and, if necessary, move really critical and generally useful things into the Core. --Frank -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Sunday, 17 June 2001 20:03:07 UTC