- From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:14:16 +0100
- To: "Shelley Powers" <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
- Cc: "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>, "Mike Champion" <mc@xegesis.org>, "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, <lists@amadan.net>, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, "John Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
>> > Shelley Powers scripsit: > >> Anyone know of an [RDF] vocabulary using reification? > >I'm glad they're hard to find. If I saw an RDF vocab using >reification, I'd >steer very clear of it. I have a very firm policy of avoiding reification >like the plague. > >I either use explicit blank nodes or (if I can relax interop >requirements), >4RDF statement context/scope annotations. Now that's exactly the thing - apart from being of a nice toy for the theoreticians, reification should give us context/scope capability without having to relax any requirements. I've still not got far enough through the latest spec suite to see how any recent changes might have impacted on the potential for contexts, but some of the n3 stuff and Graham Klyne's work on contexts [1] and scoping [2] suggest that it should be possible with little (or no?) extension to the current specs. As I'm sure is the case in practice with 4RDF, contexts aren't particularly complicated in principle. They should be simple to do within the shared model. Very simple. Reification shouldn't be the 'big ugly' (as Shelley nicely put it) to be avoided by sensible developers, it should be a big friend. Cheers, Danny. [1] http://public.research.mimesweeper.com/RDF/RDFContexts.html [2] http://www.ninebynine.org/RDFNotes/UsingContextsWithRDF.html
Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2002 05:25:37 UTC