Re: How do RDF and Formal Logic fit together?

[Wolfgang Nejdl]

>
> Well, these are two different kinds of IDs. An ID uniquely identifying
> a triple <s,p,o> in the worst case is the whole triple written as a
> term f(s,p,o) or as a constant s_p_o (or something like that), if you
> do not want to introduce nested terms. (If you have axioms, which tell
> you, that for certain kinds of triples a subset of <s,p,o> uniquely
> identifies the triple, you can use that subset.) This is what we do in
> O-Telos-RDF.
>
> Once you have this ID, you can then use it to directly reference that
> triple, for example <s_p_o,asserted_by,russell> and/or
> <s_p_o,asserted_by,college>, without using the kind of reification
> introducing additional reification triples which is included in the
> current RDF version. If you want to have this author/context
> information directly included in each tuple, you have to include a
> fifth argument "context", which some people use, too.
>

Yes, and my point is simply that you have already reified all the statements
de facto within the computer, why throw that information away (at least,
when it matters) when you serialize it?

Cheers,

Tom P

Received on Sunday, 14 October 2001 10:15:15 UTC