W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2002

Re: use/mention and reification

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:00:55 +0200
To: ext Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B872F6E7.C07B%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-01-22 10:45, "ext Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org> wrote:

> * Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com> [2002-01-22 10:15+0200]
>> On 2002-01-21 21:00, "ext Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 21 Jan 2002, Dan Connolly wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 04:06, Jan Grant wrote:
>>>>> On 18 Jan 2002, Dan Connolly wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> I still don't understand why you can't pronounce
>>>>> 
>>>>> <sentence> <rdf:Subject> <mary> .
>>>>> 
>>>>> as "the sentence has a subject whose referent is (the person) Mary" -
>>>>> ie, if you just change your intuition about what rdf:Subject "means"
>>>>> does this go away?
>>>> 
>>>> Well, yes. That is: it becomes completely useless to me.
>>> 
>>> For me too. I've used RDF's reification vocab to stuff one RDF graph
>>> inside another to carry it thru RDF environments without the inner graph
>>> content being asserted alongside the 'outer' graph. So I second DanC's
>>> point. 
>> 
>> I don't see that a reified statement constitutes assertion, per the
>> present treatment where subject, predicate, etc. denote the resource
>> nodes bearing URI labels rather than URI literals.
> 
> to clarify: 
> I didn't say that reified statements are asserted; that would be contrary
> to the letter and intent of M&S, not to mention common sense. I said that
> I've been using reification as a mechanism for encoding RDF within RDF in
> a non-asserted form. By 'inner graph' I meant the structure that is
> encoded using rdf:Statement, rdf:predicate, rdf:object and rdf:subject.
> 
> [objections to a position I've never held snipped]
> 
> Sorry if my phrasing caused any confusion,
> 
> Dan

Fair enough. I misunderstood you saying that you'd prefer the
value of rdf:subject, rdf:predicate, and rdf:object to all
be literals rather than URI labled nodes in the graph, as
that would facilitate interchange of quoted statements.

My mistake.

Cheers,

Patrick
 

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2002 04:00:09 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:43:57 EDT