[topicmaps-comment] Re: reification test case

["Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@home.com>]

[Seth Russell]

> From: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
> > Its not obvious to me that having one reification per 
> >triple constitutes a fatal problem.
>
> It breaks aggregation of annotations of triples.
>
Seth, would you say some more about how it would break the annotations?  I
can see that if you attached two annotation nodes to a reified statement
node, you wouldn't be able to say who said which note when, for example.
But you don't have to do annotations that way.  You can create an annotation
that is a bnode connected to note content, author, time, or whatever, then
make that bnode the object of a statement about the reified node.  This way
you can have as many as you like.  Nothing is broken, nor do you need
multiple cpies of the reified statement.

You do need an idiom for the annotation, but you will need idioms for almost
anything expressed with RDF because it is so generic.

Cheers,

Tom P