Interesting thread. From the user perspective we still need a way to create these kinds of annotations (either on the statements/triples or on the model/graph). Rolling one's own reification mechanism or using named graphs (which dont have support in RDF) is a technical decision point, but what about the question of "how do we get users to provide either of them?"
-Nigam. >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:public-semweb- >[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 9:40 AM >To: Pat Hayes; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Advancing translational research with the Semantic Web > > > > >> I really would suggest the named graphs would be a better >> underpinning. Unlike reification, they do have a full semantics and a >> clear deployment model, and they follow in a long tradition of naming >> document-like semantic entities. And unlike RDF reification, they are >> not widely loathed, and they are fairly widely supported. > >Well, they are not supported by RDF/XML, which (unfortunately) is the >main serialization format of RDF. Named graphs ARE supported by most >triplestores, but they are mostly already reserved for other uses, like >the representation of provenance based on the RDF files that the triples >were loaded from. I think we are also lacking a standard vocabulary for >graph - subgraph relations, which would be needed if we want to >represent graphs within graphs. > >-- Matthias > > > > >. >-- >Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? >Der kanns mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
