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

Proposals? Re: use/mention and reification

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 10:10:17 +0000 (GMT)
To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
cc: connolly@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0201240955400.4771-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
Can we get small amounts of words to describe these please? Currently
there seem to be three proposals knocking around, with a possibility of
others: (insert "this WG resolves that..." in front of all these)


Proposal #1:

	A resource R in an RDF graph G is said to be the reification
	of the statement
		S P O .
	iff there exist in G the following statements:

		R <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> .
		R <rdf:subject> f(S) .
		R <rdf:predicate> f(P) .
		R <rdf:object> f(O) .

	where f is simply the identity function.

Objections to this thus far appear to be (apologies if I'm putting words
in people's mouths here):

	danbri: objects on the basis that the intended interpretation
	associated with the "utterer" of S P O may assign different
	denotations to S, P and/or O - in other words, this is "broken"
	when reifying statements taken from different sources in the
	same graph (is that accurate, Danbri?)

	danc: objects on the grounds that there's a use/mention
	problem here, that it's hard to see how to make a MTetic
	interpretation of this work. (again, correct me if I'm wrong).
	(See his earlier messages on this) (- If there isn't a way
	to make this make sense, then this seems to be a showstopper
	objection)

Proposal #2: (Danbri or danc to fill in the blanks..?)

	Looks like proposal #1 but f is defined differently.

	f(X) = X	if X is a literal
	f(X) = ?	if X is a URI-labelled resource
	f(X) = ?	if X is a blank node

	jang: might object if f isn't injective (or "one-to-one")

Proposal #3:

	this WG resolves that it's never heard of an eleven-letter
	word beginning with "R". (DanC's option A)

(Other things that have been mentioned in passing include other ways of
including statements in a "non-assertive" fashion)

Can we give these all fancy letter names and try again?



-- 
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk
Solution: (n) a watered-down version of something neat.
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2002 05:11:40 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:43:58 EDT