[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Danny Ayers wrote:
> ... Reification shouldn't be the 'big ugly' (as Shelley
> nicely put it) to be avoided by sensible developers, it should be a big
> friend.
>
I suggest you read the discussion of RDF reification and RDF containers in
the RDF Semantics WD, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
[[
RDF provides vocabularies which are intended for use in describing
containers and bounded collections, and a reification vocabulary to enable
an RDF graph to describe, as well as exhibit, triples. Although these
vocabularies have reasonably clear informally intended conventional
meanings, we do not impose any further formal semantic conditions on them,
so the notions of rdf-entailment and rdf-interpretation apply to them
without further change. They are discussed here in order to explain both the
intuitive meanings intended, and also to note the intuitive consequences
which are not supported by the formal model theory.
]]
The RDF Semantics politely gives the reification vocabulary no formal
meaning -- it is in RDF for 'legacy' purposes, but doesn't add anything to
RDF. In short -- forget it, don't even try. It has no meaning.
RDF containers are the most B.A.D. part of RDF (IMHO), and likewise RDF
containers are not given a formal meaning in the RDF Semantics.
There isn;t much point in discussing either of these topics further, they
are included in RDF for legacy purposes but left *undefined*. This is a
polite way of saying that both of the above are *useless* -- you can't even
argue the topic, because the WD gives no meaning over which to argue -- the
ultimate in damned by faint praise.
Jonathan
|
