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

Re: Contexts and statements, reification and model

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 12:32:57 -0800
Message-ID: <3A2AADF9.A1C141F1@robustai.net>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
CC: www-rdf-interest@w3c.org
Graham Klyne wrote:

> Loosely, then, one might say that the context contains the
> statements.  Distinct from that model, the graph syntax uses a resource of
> type context and a number of resources of type statement, the latter being
> reifications of the statements.

Yes I can now agree with that.  However in order to make this consistent I needed
to understand a new concept of explicit reification.  Thanks to Pierre's superbly
timed poll, I think i can now make the distinction, and see it in a mentograph, if
not in the RDF model itself.  See

> >9. Reification of a triple {pred, sub, obj} of Statements is an element r
> >of Resources representing the reified triple and the elements s1, s2, s3,
> >and s4 of Statements such that
> >
> >       s1: {RDF:predicate, r, pred}
> >       s2: {RDF:subject, r, subj}
> >       s3: {RDF:object, r, obj}
> >       s4: {RDF:type, r, [RDF:Statement]}
> I note:  this clearly states that the reification of a statement is a
> resource.  If one accepts that the identifiers do not appear in the formal
> model, then I think the reified statement must be unique, per Sergey's
> comments.

But I think the identifiers are in the formal model.  Just how that is so is
something that I'm still working on.

> If I need
> to talk about a particular stating being asserted and signed by Alice, and
> another stating asserted and signed by Bob, I think I need to create two
> new resources[.] that relates to the (unique) reification of [p s o].

I would like to place the period as indicated above. Hopefully this will be in the
consensus.   Is there any dissent?

I almost think I see a glimmer of a consistent interpretation of context and
reification.  And the exciting thing is that it seems consistent with M&S.

Thanks for the dialogue ...
Seth Russell
Received on Sunday, 3 December 2000 15:29:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:33 UTC