Repository navigation
Decide between rdf:Statement and tr:MappingAssertion for mapping reification #135
Closed as not planned
Description
Activity
Reduced in scope rather than decided.
#127 no longer reifies
MappingAssertion. The context keepstr:MappingAssertion, and #127 defines that class in the published ontology. No ADR is needed now.This issue stays open as the question it always was: whether a later context version should express a mapping as an
rdf:Statement. Reopen the design work when there is a consumer that needs it. Note that RDF 1.2 deprecates the reification vocabulary in favour of triple terms, so the answer may be neither.
Question
Should
MappingAssertionexpand to a barerdf:Statement, or totr:MappingAssertion rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Statement?#127 maps the term straight to
rdf:Statement. That choice has a cost on each side, so it needs a decision record rather than a silent default.Trade-off
Bare
rdf:Statement(the current choice):rdf:type rdf:Statementwith no inference.MappingAssertiondisappears from/ontology/, while Specification §10 still centres on it.tr:MappingAssertion rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Statement:/ontology/.rdf:type rdf:Statement.Also to record
RDF 1.2 deprecates the reification vocabulary in favour of triple terms. The decision record should state how TextRefs plans to migrate.
Suggested action
Write an ADR under
decisions/. Raised during review of #127 and deferred to keep that PR lean.