We spent a lot of time in SWAN working through this issue. We would
be happy to give a talk on it at an upcoming HCLS, preferably when
Paolo returns from Italy.
Tim
On WednesdayMay 16, 2007, at 1:47 PM, Nigam Shah wrote:
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 don’t 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
