- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:10:56 +0300
- To: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com> To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>; "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>; "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>; "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org> Sent: 23 September, 2002 14:41 Subject: RE: Proposed N-Triples changes for datatypes & (untidy) literals > > Patrick: > > I understood reification as requiring the specific untidy literal > > node to be referencable. Is this not the case? > > Depends on your reading of reification, see: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0206.html > Issue 4 > > > I worry that that is the thin end of a fat wedge, and so would rather not go > there. > > Jeremy Hmmmmm... are we then saying that reification captures the form of expression rather than the meaning of expression? If so, then rdf:subject, rdf:predicate, and rdf:object should take literals rather than URIrefs as values. I.e. <rdf:subject>http://foo.com/blargh</rdf:subject> and not <rdf:subject rdf:resource="http://foo.com/blargh"/> But if the value of rdf:subject and rdf:predicate are going to be the actual resources denoted in the original stating, then so also should the value of rdf:object denote the actual resource denoted in the original stating, and to do that, we either have to add some extra machinery to how rdfs:range is interpreted with regards to reifications, so that the same long-distance datatyping applies to the reification as to the original triple, e.g. add the following closure rule to the MT: IF _:x rdf:type rdf:Statement . _:x rdf:predicate ppp . _:x rdf:object "LLL" . ppp rdfs:range ddd . THEN _:x rdf:object ddd"LLL" . [or something along those lines that results in the intepretation of the object of rdf:object as I(ddd"LLL") etc.] Or we have to be able to differentiate between and explicitly reference the particular literal node of the reified triple. I'd be happy with either. I think the latter would be easier, and also offer the other legacy-related benefits as well. Patrick [Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 50) 483 9453, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]
Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 08:15:18 UTC