对没有具体化的陈述作出陈述 [英] Making statements about statements which are no reified

问题描述

如果我误用了一些术语，请原谅我，我刚刚开始熟悉 RDF 和具体化.

Forgive me if I'm misusing some terms, I'm just becoming familiar with RDF and reification in particular.

我想了解的是，如果/如何对您无法控制且实际上并未设置为 rdf:Statement(或任何其他资源，即具体化).

What I'm trying to understand is if/how you can make a statement about a statement that you don't control and which isn't actually set up as an rdf:Statement (or any other resource, i.e., reified).

例如，如果某个语义网站提出声明:

For instance, if some semantic website makes the claim:

ex:elvis-presley
    ex:is-alive "true"^^xsd:boolean .

这里有一个隐含的 rdf:Statement 资源:

There is an implicit rdf:Statement resource here:

_:x
    a rdf:Statement ;
    rdf:subject ex:elvis-presley ;
    rdf:predicate ex:is-alive ;
    rdf:object ex:true "true"^^xsd:boolean .

现在假设我有我自己的语义网站，我想反驳这个声明，或者肯定它，或者对这个声明做任何其他类型的元声明.语句资源没有全局标识符，所以我无法引用它.

Now suppose I have my own semantic website and I would like to refute this statement, or affirm it, or make any other kind of meta-statement about this statement. The statement resource doesn't have a global identifier, so I can't reference it.

有什么办法可以解决这个问题，或者您能否只对明确形成的声明本身作为已识别资源发表声明?

Is there any way to handle this, or can you only make statements about statements that are explicitly formed as identified resources in their own right?

推荐答案

我认为具体化是一个最初看起来比实际中更有用的话题.您可以在图表中有一个三元组:

I think that reification is a topic that initially seems more useful than it actually tends to be in practice. You can have a triple in a graph:

s p o .

你可以在一个图中有四个三元组:

and you can have four triples in a graph:

x a rdf:Statement .
x rdf:subject s .
x rdf:preficate p .
x rdf:object o .

但仅此而已.如果有人碰巧有第二种形式的四个三元组，而 x 恰好是一个 URI，那么你就写了关于 x 的三元组.如果它是一个空白节点，则您无法引用它.在任何一种情况下，x 都被认为是三重 s p o 的具体化.这意味着问题

but that's about it. If someone happens to have four triples of the second form, and x happens to be a URI, then then you write triples about x. If it's a blank node, then you don't have a way of referencing it. In either case, x is said to be a reification of the triple s p o. That means that the question

你能否只具体化那些明确形成为已识别资源的语句?

Can you only reify statements that are explicitly formed as identified resources in their own right?

意义不大.语句s p o 的具体化是具有相关属性的资源x.具体化s p o"除了选择一个x，然后断言它的相应三元组"之外，并没有真正的意义.

doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The reificiation of a statement s p o is a resource x that has the associated properties. "To reify s p o" doesn't really mean anything except "pick an x, and assert the corresponding triples about it."

任何试图断言 s p o 的人都不太可能编写第二种形式.如果您试图表示一些关于三元组的陈述，则往往会出现第二种形式，例如，john say x . x a rdf:Statement . ...".

It's very unlikely that anyone trying to assert s p o would write the second form. The second form tends to arise if you're trying to represent some statements about triples, e.g., "john says x . x a rdf:Statement . …".

如果你想谴责某人声称猫王还活着，你可能会这样做

If you want to decry someone's claim that Elvis lives, you'd probably just do

:elvisLives a rdf:Statement ;
            rdf:subject ex:elvis-presley ;
            rdf:predicate ex:is-alive ;
            rdf:object true ;
            :claimedBy <http://example.org/whoeverSaidIt> ;
            :hasValue false .

或者，如果您在 OWL 领域，则可以使用否定属性断言:

Alternatively, if you're in the realm of OWL, you can use a negative property assertion:

NegativeDataPropertyAssertion( ex:lives ex:elvis-presley "true"^^xsd:boolean )

RDF 表示看起来像

The RDF representation would look like

_:x rdf:type owl:NegativePropertyAssertion .
_:x owl:sourceIndividual ex:elvis-presley .
_:x owl:assertionProperty ex:lives .
_:x owl:targetValue true .

您可以看到两种方法之间的相似之处.OWL 包括一种具体化词汇及其owl:sourceIndividual、owl:assertionProperty 和owl:targetValue.

You can see a similarity between the two approaches. OWL includes a sort of reification vocabulary with its owl:sourceIndividual, owl:assertionProperty and owl:targetValue.

这篇关于对没有具体化的陈述作出陈述的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！