W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2000

Paradox and Contexts

From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 13:11:25 +0100
Message-ID: <3A28E6ED.FA0103CF@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
CC: ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
Graham Klyne wrote:
> 
> At 08:26 PM 11/28/00 +0100, Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote:
> >This sentence has five words.
> >This sentence is in english.
> >This sentence begins with "This".
> >This sentence talks about itself.
> >
> >Look at the RDF version of the last example above :
> >
> >  [stidD, stidD, rdf:subject, stidD]
> >
> >Funny, isn't it ?
> >Not very useful, but definitely consistent.

I should have precised, I use the syntax [id, s, p, o]...

> This in turn caused me to review my thoughts about multiple models for a
> given statement.  Consider two 'quads':
> 
>    [r1, p, s, o]
>    [r2, p, s, o]
> 
> What are the corresponding RDF triples?  I think:
> 
>    [p, s, o]
> 
>    [r1, rdf:type, rdf:Statement]
>    [r1, rdf:predicate, p]
>    [r1, rdf:subject, s]
>    [r1, rdf:object, o]
> 
>    [r2, rdf:type, rdf:Statement]
>    [r2, rdf:predicate, p]
>    [r2, rdf:subject, s]
>    [r2, rdf:object, o]
> 
> Note that the basic triple appears just once, even though it appears in two
> quads.  This, I think, is roughly what happens when id= is applied to an
> RDF property in its XML serialization.
> 
> Actually, the approach I've taken for my contexts ideas is slightly
> different:  the quad notation actually defines the reification, without
> asserting the statement triple.  A statement is asserted in a context by an
> RDF property that links the reification to the context.

That is a question I had :
which context does the "linking" statement belong to ?

  Pierre-Antoine
Received on Saturday, 2 December 2000 07:39:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:47 GMT