RE: Reification - whats best practice?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of ext Steve Harris
> Sent: 26 August, 2004 13:00
> To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Reification - whats best practice?
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:59:02 +0100, Hamish Harvey wrote:
> > 
> > Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> > 
> > >    In my published RDF files, I just assert things about 
> the RDF/XML
> > >    serialized document. Eg. that I'm its dc:creator or 
> foaf:maker. I
> > >    also like using a wot:assurance property to relate it to the
> > >    output of the PGP/GPG signing process.
> > >
> > >If I'm understanding you right Dan, your approach seems to be
> > >the same, in essence, as named graphs, where one makes statements
> > >about the graph, which allows one to infer things about the 
> > >statements within that graph.
> > > 
> > >
> > 
> > Isn't it the same in essence, except for the fact that it's 
> polluting? 
> > When you start doing that it becomes impossible to 
> differentiate between 
> > statements about the *graph* and statements about the *rdf 
> document*.
> 
> Only if they have the same URI. You can differentiate graphs 
> with anything
> (say a bNode), and use some property to link the graph to the document
> URI.

Right. I was not suggesting that a URI be overloaded to denote
both a graph and a serialization of that graph (document).

I was simply suggesting that the approach Dan presented seems
analogous to making assertions about the graph in which statements
occur, from which one can infer things about those statements.

I.e.

IF the source of some graph X is Y
THEN any statement S in X has a source Y

being analogous to

IF the source of some RDF/XML instance X is Y
THEN any statement S serialized in X has a source Y

etc.

Patrick


> 
> - Steve
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 12:57:32 UTC