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

Towards a final consensus re statements & statings

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 07:40:51 -0800
Message-ID: <3A2D0C83.28D96BDC@robustai.net>
To: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: www-rdf-interest@w3c.org
"McBride, Brian" wrote:

> > topic: Implications of using the statement id
> > see: http://ilrt.org/discovery/2000/11/statements/#3.1
> > text:  However, when a reified statement is given a URI via
> > the ID attribute then
> > this implies that any reified statement with that URI is
> > referring to the same
> > stating.
> >
> > So is this registering somewhere as a consensus?  Is there
> > any dissent?
> Well, not dissent really.  I'd just remind you that this is
> not what the spec says, to wit:
>   a statement is a triple (s,p,o)

Yes, like the idealized images outside of Plato's cave, God sees
the one and only unique triple amongst the myriad copies.

> and a reified statement represents a statement.

Yes I agree that the raw reification quad alone,  can only
represent the idealized triple.  What is hung off of any such
reification node restrains and qualifies the reference of the
node away from the ideal to the particular.  If a unique serial
number is finally stamped on the utterance of the triple in the
property element of XML serialized RDF, we should be able to
conclude that this particular reification node represents the
stating and not the statement.

> Note - a statement, as defined in m&s, not a stating.

For our research, could somebody provide the exact quoting from
M&S where that is explicitly stated or implied?

> It can be hard to track the arguments through a mail thread,
> and be sure that everything has been covered.  Seth, would
> you like to summarize the case for making this change.  That
> would sure help clarify things.

Thanks I would be honored to take a stab at it .... perhaps
others will also .... give me a moment please.   At the end of
that, and the discussion that might follow, perhaps we could even
expect that some formal process or working group would result in
some sort of official pronouncement,  so that this need not keep
cropping up .....

Seth Russell
Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2000 10:38:18 UTC

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