- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 10:28:05 -0800
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: jena-dev@yahoogroups.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, Bob MacGregor <macgregor@isi.edu>
Dave Reynolds wrote: >As I pointed out in my earlier message, the RDF core working group has endorsed >position (1) that reified statements are statings. Personally, I agree with you >that a 1-1 correspondence between statements and their reifications would be >better but that is not the decision and so is not the proposed standard. You may >wish to raise this on rdf-comments. > Yes, the WG has decided, nodes of rdf:type rdf:Statement *are* statings, I think you guys should accept that and move on. Of course if you want to discuss a node that represents a Platonic triple, then there is nothing preventing you from describing such a thing as ( _:tHASHofTRIPLE, rdf:type, jena:Triple ). But I really don't know any practical case where we would want to say something about a jena:Triple. Do you? >I presently have no idea how >to implement a reification API efficiently in an RDB system. > You could cover all bases in a record with 5 fields: serial, subject, property, object, model. Allow the model to be identified as a blank node identifier, or a Uri. Give a serial number to each stating (triple X model) in the form s12345. Now you can have a record like <98765, _:s12345, rdf:type, rdf:Statement, _:m12>. So in any model you can describe statings, you can describe triples, and you can describe models - just put the appropriate URI or blank node identifier in the subject slot. Seth Russell http://radio.weblogs.com/0113759/
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2003 13:28:41 UTC