W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > September 2000

RE: abstract model

From: Graham Klyne <GK@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:52:39 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'RDF Interest (E-mail)'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 09:29 AM 9/15/00 +0100, Jan Grant wrote:
>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

IMO, a resource representing the reified statement can have a URI. There 
may be more than one such resource.

>- in which case is there a way of determining that URI for any
>particular reification?

Sure... look to the corresponding resource.

>- given a URI (or just a resource) is there a way of determining which
>statement, if any, it reifies?

If the reification is complete, there should be only one possible statement 
that it reifies.  The RDF model talks about a _set_ of statement triples.

>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.

I think the (partial) reification is fine.  It's the mapping that I cannot buy.


Graham Klyne
Received on Friday, 15 September 2000 08:53:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:25 UTC