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

Re: summary of 'a triple is not unique' and 'statements/reified' statements

From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 14:27:29 +0000
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001205142454.00b47890@pop.dial.pipex.com>
To: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3c.org
At 10:15 AM 12/3/00 -0800, Seth Russell wrote:
>Graham Klyne wrote:
>
> > At 02:46 PM 11/28/00 +0000, Libby Miller wrote:
> >
> > >http://ilrt.org/discovery/2000/11/statements/
> >
> > If one document or context makes an assertion about the statement [r], and
> > some other document makes a different assertion using the same URI for [r],
> > then they are assertions about the *same* stating, even though the
> > reification is invoked in very different places.
> >
> > >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.
> >
> > Yes.
>
>Yes.
>
>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?

A cautious agreement from me.

I am concerned about the possible implication of reification==stating.  As 
I say elsewhere, I think some reifications are NOT statings.  But when a 
given reification is used to describe a stating, then I think other uses of 
the same reification must refer to the same stating.

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2000 10:08:31 GMT

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