- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 10:10:17 +0000 (GMT)
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- cc: connolly@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Can we get small amounts of words to describe these please? Currently there seem to be three proposals knocking around, with a possibility of others: (insert "this WG resolves that..." in front of all these) Proposal #1: A resource R in an RDF graph G is said to be the reification of the statement S P O . iff there exist in G the following statements: R <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> . R <rdf:subject> f(S) . R <rdf:predicate> f(P) . R <rdf:object> f(O) . where f is simply the identity function. Objections to this thus far appear to be (apologies if I'm putting words in people's mouths here): danbri: objects on the basis that the intended interpretation associated with the "utterer" of S P O may assign different denotations to S, P and/or O - in other words, this is "broken" when reifying statements taken from different sources in the same graph (is that accurate, Danbri?) danc: objects on the grounds that there's a use/mention problem here, that it's hard to see how to make a MTetic interpretation of this work. (again, correct me if I'm wrong). (See his earlier messages on this) (- If there isn't a way to make this make sense, then this seems to be a showstopper objection) Proposal #2: (Danbri or danc to fill in the blanks..?) Looks like proposal #1 but f is defined differently. f(X) = X if X is a literal f(X) = ? if X is a URI-labelled resource f(X) = ? if X is a blank node jang: might object if f isn't injective (or "one-to-one") Proposal #3: this WG resolves that it's never heard of an eleven-letter word beginning with "R". (DanC's option A) (Other things that have been mentioned in passing include other ways of including statements in a "non-assertive" fashion) Can we give these all fancy letter names and try again? -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk Solution: (n) a watered-down version of something neat.
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2002 05:11:40 UTC