- From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 10:47:30 +0200
- To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- CC: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Sergey Melnik wrote: > > The current spec suggests the "4 triple" form of reification. It may > seem that there is a need for that on the modeling level; I believe > there is none. I don't understand it as being a need, but a consequence : assume a triple has a corresponding resource, this resource clearly has the 4 properties proposed by M&S even if this resource has been produced by a Skolem function now, the other way round, you can consider any resource with those 4 properties as a reification for a corresponding triple. That's how I understand M&S approach. there is still the problem of what model is asserting a triple, that's why I like the idea of Graham, for replacing triples with 4-uples : (subject,predicate,object,context) and then a 5th property attached to reified statements ;-P Pierre-Antoine --- Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur Whatever is said in Latin sounds important.
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2000 04:40:35 UTC