- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:29:57 +0100 (BST)
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- cc: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'RDF Interest (E-mail)'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Graham Klyne wrote: > Consider, if you have an RDF model (per M&S section 5 formal model) containing: > > [A] --type------> [Statement] > [A] --subject---> [S] > [A] --property--> [P] > [A] --object----> [O] > > [B] --type------> [Statement] > [B] --subject---> [S] > [B] --property--> [P] > [B] --object----> [O] > > [S] --P---------> [O] > > There is no way to know if [A] or [B] is the reification of "[S] --P--> [O]". This is the problem I have, thus why I proposed the "is a reification of" relationship over the notion of a direct mapping. The paper at http://nestroy.wi-inf.uni-essen.de/rdf/logical_interpretation/index.html seems to imply this interpretation too; the Reification mapping is not single-valued. jan PS. What are the engineering implications of the Reification mapping that Brian proposes? - does a statement's reification have a URI? (or more than one, since a reification is a resource which may have multiple URIs that symbolise it)* - in which case is there a way of determining that URI for any particular reification? - given a URI (or just a resource) is there a way of determining which statement, if any, it reifies? PPS. I've no problem with Brian's intuition about "Jan made a statement about Dan, but I'm not exactly sure what" - it's a nice idea, but I don't think it justifies a "the reification" viewpoint. * Can of worms stuff apparently. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287163 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk Bolstered by my success with vi, I proceeded to learn C with 'learn c'.
Received on Friday, 15 September 2000 04:30:04 UTC