- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:17:54 -0500
- To: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@home.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>[Sean B. Palmer] > >> > 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? >> >> Are you stating that when a processor comes across a reified triple, it >> should store it in <s, p, o, id> form internally? If not, if you >> recursively processed in-out a piece of RDF, you'd end up with a horrible >> reified mess. >> > >No, I'm saying that most processors would in fact store the equivalent of ><s, p, o, id> as you say (although the id might be implicit, for example, >the position in an array), so why throw that information away or make it >hard to access when you serialize? Even though <s, p, o, id> might be used >internally, the rdf model doesn't actually contain that construct, does it? Right, it does not. The issue (to me) however is what it would be supposed to MEAN. All this discussion seems to be about how to encode datastructures. Regarding datastructuires, if you have 4-tuples you can build arbitrary nested structures, but RDF doesn't have 4-tuples, it has 3-tuples; not QUITE enough to be a universal datastructuring primitive. (It would be if those tuples could reference one another, but they can't in general, which is why you need 4-tuples to make all the connections. ) Pat Hayes -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2001 01:17:58 UTC