- From: Wolfgang Nejdl <nejdl@kbs.uni-hannover.de>
- Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:15:48 +0100
- To: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>
- cc: "Enrico Franconi" <franconi@cs.man.ac.uk>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> From: "Enrico Franconi" <franconi@cs.man.ac.uk> > > > Sorry if this question looks naive, or if you had on this already a > > big discussion in the past (which is likely anyway). > > > > Suppose that a unique id is associated to each triple. This could be > > either implicit (i.e., generated internally like OIDs in O-O data > > models) or explicit (if you want to mention it later). > > > > The additional (explicit) ID serves as a reference in other triples > > willing to state something on it (as a foreign key). I understand that > > this is the spirit of reification. > > > For the triples where the ID is implicit, the syntax wouldn't change, > > and the semantics could be the standard MT already devised. > > > > If the current MT wants to ignore reification (as it correctly does), > > then it should just ignore the presence of those additional IDs. This > > makes a lot of sense since the semantics of reification is still > > unclear, and a lot of work should be done. A future extension of the > > MT (based supposedly on HOL) could then take IDs into account. > > > > This is more or less in the spirit of Nejdl's proposal. > > > > - do you have the feeling that this would solve all the problems (on > > expressiveness and on semantic clarity) of reification? [please, > > note the naivete of the question :-)] > > > > - Would this be an impossible addition to the rdf standard syntax? > > Actually there is the idAttr allowable on a property element .. see section > D production 6.12 of the revised syntax: > <http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20011218/#section-Grammar> > But I'm not sure whether it is practical to used that for your purpose. > > But isn't it better just to keep piling more and more restraints on a > reified statement untill it can only be satisfied by one instance of the Why should you do that? If you want to say something about a statement, the easiest way would be to directly refer to it (using a name / an ID / etc.) Wolfgang > triple? See my example at the bottom of the following post: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2002Feb/0031.html > > Seth Russell > -- Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Nejdl tel. +49 511 762-19710 Institut für Technische Informatik fax. +49 511 762-19712 Rechnergestützte Wissensverarbeitung http://www.kbs.uni-hannover.de/ Educational Technology Lab http://www.etl.uni-hannover.de/ Learning Lab Lower Saxony http://www.learninglab.de/ Universität Hannover, Appelstraße 4, 30167 Hannover, Deutschland
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2002 18:18:58 UTC