- From: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:40:35 +0200
- To: Bob MacGregor <macgregor@isi.edu>
- CC: "'RDF interesting groupe'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Bob MacGregor wrote: > It's rare that one statement captures what > you want to say, whether its a time-dependent statement or a > probabillistic one, or whatever. I believe single statement reification is quite appropriate for indicating why two resources are related. Example: uniprot:P12345 rdf:type :Protein uniprot:P12345 :organism taxonomy:9606 taxonomy:9606 :scientificName 'Homo sapiens' Now I want to indicate what the evidence is that the protein occurs in the specified organism. How many statements does this affect? Exactly 1. > there were no "use cases" We have a lot of data that is backed by several sources. Consider the following example: s1 p1 o1 : backed by a1 and a2 s1 p2 o2 : backed by a1 and a3 If we were to use contexts for expressing this, there would have to be three different contexts (for statements backed a1, a2 and a3), and both statements would have to be duplicated into two different contexts. Correct? I imagine this approach would bloat the data far more than normal reification would... (If you still have doubts, consider this: My spell checker suggested replacing 'reification' with 'deification' :-)
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 06:40:32 UTC