W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 1998

Re: Draft query: reified statements

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 14:25:06 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980925142506.02d5e240@127.0.0.1>
To: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
(Ora Lassila previously replied privately to John; this message
is primarily to include the response in the public archive.)

At 04:23 PM 9/10/98 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>The draft does not make clear whether an explicitly written reified
>statement (i.e. a resource with the four properties instanceOf,
>propName, propObj, and value) is necessarily asserted by RDF.

The statement and the reified statement are independent; either
can exist in the model instance without the other and they are
not interchangable.  The fact asserted by a statement is part
of the model if and only if the statement is in the model.

>In formal terms, can we infer from the presence in the set Triples of:
>
>	{instanceOf, [x], RDF:Property}
>	{propName, [x], p}
>	{propObj, [x], r}
>	{value, [x], v}
>
>that {p, r, v} is also present in Triples?

no, this is not a valid inference in RDF.

>  If not, this should be
>clarified.

We will add more words to this effect.

Thank you for your suggestions.

-Ralph R. Swick
 W3C/MIT
Received on Friday, 25 September 1998 14:28:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:26 GMT