Re: summary of reification?

Pat Hayes wrote:
> 
> Sergey, I think we are violently agreeing but using terminology at
> cross purposes. When I said lets trash reification, I meant by
> 'reification' to refer to the RDF syntax for reification, ie the use
> of 4-triples.

Gotcha.

> I think you mean 'reification' in the sense of 'any
> technique for associating a name with a sentence' or some such very
> general usage. Seems to me that you were saying that  in current
> practice this is not, and should not be, done by using 4-triples. In
> which case, to re-phrase my suggestion less ambiguously, let us
> hereby IGNORE such 4-triples usage.  It is simply normal RDF usage,
> and has no special meaning, so we do not need to even mention it
> (other perhaps than to emphasize that it has no particular special
> meaning.)

If nobody uses the 4-triple style, I would agree with you, but I see it
a part of our job to provide some alternative mechanism so that
applications could exchange reified statements interoperably. For
example, we could go as far as to say that rdf:subject etc. to be
treated as syntax only, producing no triples (just like rdf:Description
or rdf:RDF do not produce triples directly). However, even if we move
reification to the syntax in this or other way, we owe some kind of
explanation wrt the graph representation / interpretation of such
"pumpkins".

Sergey

Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 19:08:19 UTC