RE: unreification

> > Idea of atomicity is in transactions. One can rollback
> > atomic transactions as indivisible units. It seems
> > to me that 'Unreification' needs similar notion
> > of indivisible collection of sentences.
> 
> Ok, i see, if a reified statement must be a 4 statement set, 
> then all four statements must
> be forgotten together along with whatever else has been 
> asserted on that node.

That's my point. The RDFm recc has nothing to say on this matter: it just
says that statement 'quads' must be created. That might have the implication
that statements that 'belong' to these quads are to be treated procedurally
in a different way. That is, we need (well, I'd like) some consensus on
transaction semantics for retracting reified statements. I don't actually
have a problem with using quads per se, sorry if I gave that impression.

-Bill de hÓra

Received on Friday, 17 November 2000 03:52:29 UTC