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

Re: Modelling a stating

From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 11:56:53 +0100
Message-ID: <3A34B2F5.26EFEBC0@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
To: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: www-rdf-interest@w3c.org
"McBride, Brian" wrote:
> Pierre-Antoine,
> >   about 3.  I already submitted the idea below on the list,
> > but I will go further : the problem raised by Jonas is not a
> > problem ! If we do consider that the reified statement is
> > really a statement rather than a stating, then the date
> > should not be a property of st1, but rather of st2 and st4 !
> >
> >   st1: [Ora, creator, page]
> >   st2: [st1, saidBy, Ralph]
> >   st3: [st2, at, 01/12/99]
> >   st4: [st1, saidBy, Pierre-Antoine]
> >   st5: [st4, at, 01/12/00]
> >
> > The statements st2 and st4 are actually statings, not because
> > *every* reified statement be a stating, but because of the
> > particular meaning of their predicate "saidBy".
> Interesting approach.  I'm uncomfortable with st2 - you say its
> a model of a stating.  But its also, by definition a model of a
> statement.  I've been thinking that statements and statings are
> disjoint, so how can this be?  Are they disjoint?  Can the same
> thing model both a statement and a stating?

Sorry, I should have written :

  The statements st2 and st4 represent statings, not beacause[...]
> What's key about the concept of a
> stating?  Basically, its a multi-valued relation - e.g.

A stating is formally a pair (statement, context),
meaning that the statement were stated in some given context.
The context may have a number of properties : location, time, stater, etc...

In the example above, I assume that the stater is unambiguously identifying the context.
This is arguable since the same stater may have stated the same statement more than once.
A better representation of a stating would probably be :

  (statement, statedIn, URLofRDFdoc)

But that does not really matter; even if I add to the previous example :

   st6: [st4, at, 02/12/00]

it is still consistent : st4 can no longer be considered to unambiguously refer to a stating (since 2 dates are affected) but st5 and st6 can...

My point is : we do not need a special representation for statings, there will always be a statement refering to the stating, hence that statement can be used to represent the stating.


Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the
universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
(Bill Watterson -- Calvin & Hobbes)
Received on Monday, 11 December 2000 05:58:52 UTC

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