- From: Graham Klyne <GK@dial.pipex.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:52:39 +0100
- 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 >it)* 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. #g ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Friday, 15 September 2000 08:53:40 UTC