- From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:11:58 -0800
- To: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- CC: RDF Interest Group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote: > > Sergey Melnik wrote: > > I inherited his idea [making Statement inherit Resource] in the > > "Stanford" API, have been relying on it for over a year for both > > in-memory and database-backed RDF applications, and it proved pretty > > decent so far. Thus, I believe it makes perfect sense to reflect this in > > the RDF model itself. > > What you did in the stanford API, by making Statement inherit Resource, > is in my point of view handling *only* reified statements. > > This is absolutely consistent with RDF M&S, implying that all statements in an RDF description are reified and put in a Bag. That bag is implicitely modeled by the Model class in the API. > > With this point of view, the RDF model does not have to be extended to "match" the API... > > Pierre-Antoine That's right, you can view the API as a number of convenience methods to deal with Bags etc. The only proper incompatibility that I'm counting on is the uniqueness of reified statements. Sergey
Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2000 14:53:48 UTC