Hi Bo, yes it definitely has something in common. Would you please mind pointing me to some explanations, why reification is considered so harmful?
I see some interesting points there, namely The subject of a reification > <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-mt-20140225/#dfn-reification> is > intended to refer to a concrete realization of an RDF triple, such as a > document in a surface syntax, rather than a triple considered as an > abstract object. This *supports use cases where properties such as dates > of composition or provenance information are applied to the reified triple*, > which are meaningful *only when thought of as referring to a particular > instance* or token of a triple. it seems worth the attention at the very least. And also Since the relation between triples and reification > <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-mt-20140225/#dfn-reification>s of > triples in any RDF graph or graphs need not be one-to-one, asserting a > property about some entity described by a reification > <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-mt-20140225/#dfn-reification> need > not entail that the same property holds of another such entity, even if it > has the same components. This seems interesting to me. Also I like dictionary approach like in RDF HDT format <http://www.rdfhdt.org/technical-specification/#triples>. What do you think about this combination as a basic data model? WBR, Andrii On Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:12:16 AM UTC+2, Bo Ferri wrote: > > Hi Andrii, > well, this looks like a re-incarnation of RDF reification [1], which is > the worst modelling option for subject-predicate-object statements in my > mind ;) > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Neo4j" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
