Re: reification test case

From: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>
Subject: Re: reification test case
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 05:32:57 -0800

> From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
> 
> > Again, I'm interested in wording in RDF M&S that indicates that there can
> > be more than one reification of a given statement.  I can't even find an
> > issue in the RDF Issue Tracking document about this.
> 
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/Overview.html#rdfms-identity-of-stat
> ements>
> ..which refers to
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/1999Dec/0068.html>
> ... which is the first place (that I know of) where Dan Brickley raised this
> issue back in 1999.  You may find where he says: "I believe the model spec
> is a little unclear on this" especially enlightening.
> 
> Seth Russell

To me, this issue does not address whether there can be multiple
reifications of a statement (triple), but whether there can be multiple
statements (triples) with the same subject, predicate, and object.  

Some of the discussion underlying this issue does, indeed, talk about
reified statements.  However, there are no pointers to M&S that I can find
anywhere in the discussion.  Without some pointer to M&S I am puzzled as to
how the participants have come up with their views.


This debate does bring up an interesting question:  What is RDF?  My view
is that RDF is what is stated in RDF M&S (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax)
and that other documents (including email discussions) are not part of
RDF.   Thus statements like

	I believe the model spec is a little unclear on this.

cannot be used to determine what RDF is or is not, particularly if the
document containing the statement does not point back to the relevant
portions of RDF M&S.


So I'm still looking for wording in RDF M&S that indicates that there can
be more than one reification of a given statement.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research

Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 09:53:30 UTC