- From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 13:36:31 +0100
- To: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- Cc: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 09:32 AM 5/31/00 +0200, Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote: > > Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote: > > >Why should we make a difference between reifying a triple and reifying > an arc, > > >that is : > > > > > > ___________ > > >| S -(P)-> O| S -(P)-> O > > >|___________| | > > > | (assertedBy) > > > (assertedBy) | > > > | v > > > v Someone > > > Someone > > > > > > (fig 1) (fig 2) > > > Fig 2 can be treated as a convenient shorthand for S-(P)->O, PLUS its > > reification, PLUS the arc 'assertedBy' from the root resource of the > > reification to 'Someone'. > >that's not a shorthand, that's the way I understand what you describe ! >Everyone seems to consider a triple reification as the frame in fig.1, >I consider a triple reification as the arc itself, >because reifying it (i.e. "making it a thing") is necessary to draw >another arc from it. But reification described in M&S involves making a node resource for the statement, AND adding four graph arcs originating from that node. If we can find a usable identity for the statement resource, then the four additional arcs aren't necessarily needed. #g ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2000 12:02:16 UTC