- From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:37:30 -0500
- To: www-archive@w3.org
Reification can be thought of like quoting. Just like how putting quotes around a bunch of text turns it into something we can talk about, rather than use to talk, reifying a triple turns it into an RDF resource so we can talk about it. Compare: "I like donuts," said John. {:John :likes :donuts} :says :John . "I like donuts" and {:John :likes :donuts} are both valid statements on their own, but we quote them above (and in this sentence) so we can talk about them. Also like English, even when the contents of the reification are the same, you can't merge the nodes. If you heard: "we are engaged in a great civil war" was said on November 19, 1863. "we are engaged in a great civil war" John said. You wouldn't conclude that John said it in 1863. Similarly, from: {:US :engagedIn :CivilWar} :saidOn "1863-10-19" . {:US :engagedIn :CivilWar} :saidBy :John . you can't merge the two reification nodes and conclude: {:US engagedIn :CivilWar} :saidOn "1863-10-19"; :saidBy :John . In this sense, a reification refers to a specific instance of a triple, not the abstract triple itself. Here's a more interesting example: { :1WeekFetuses rdfs:subClassOf :People } :says :ProLifersInternational . { :1WeekFetuses daml:disjointFrom :People} :says :ProChoicersInternational . { :ProLifersInternational rdf:type :UntrustworthyOrganization} :says :DemocraticParty . :ShellyP rdf:type :Democrat . { ?x says :DemocraticParty . ?person rdf:type :Democrat } => { ?person :probablyBelieves ?x } . -- Aaron Swartz [http://www.aaronsw.com] "Curb your consumption," he said.
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 13:37:33 UTC