[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: RDF for unstructured databases, RDF for axiomatic
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
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|