Re: Statements/Reified statements

Graham Klyne wrote:

> Personally, I tend to agree with you, but the RDF M&S currently uses
> rdf:_1, rdf:_2, etc.
>
> However, the RDF M&S does not (cannot?) prevent one defining a different
> structure for describing ordered collections -- such as "link list" as you
> suggest (but beware: the "links" here are illusory --- don't think of them
> like C structures).  But be aware that that approach too will suffer from a
> requirement for re-writing if you wish to insert a new element (though not
> as many rewrites as the numbered property approach).

Strangely enough this nasty problem could be fixed, if the RDF data model allowed
for real numbers in rdf:_x.

But in any case, I stand with you calling for the allowance of collecting
statements apart from bags via explicit reification:

[c] ---rdfc:asserts--->[id, s, p, o]

It's direct, its useful, it's efficient!

Is there any dissent?

Seth Russell