- From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:59:50 +0100
- To: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
"McBride, Brian" wrote: > I really don't understand why folks are so reluctant > to accept that statements and their occurrences are > two different concepts and need different resources > to model them. What is the big deal? I do not know any people on the list reluctant to consider that, even me as you suggest :) I think we all agree that Statements and Statings are different things, and must be represented by different resources. The problem is: RDF M&S only provides one representation (the reified statement) without explicitely stating which one (from the Statement or the Stating) it represents... <flame shield> I know that some of us think that it *is* explicit enough, but anyway there is a debate </flame shield> > Pierre-Antoine's proposal uses a reified statement to > represent both a statement and a stating. My concern > is that this can lead to contradictions. Yes, but *not* the Stating of the *same* Statement ! [Pierre-Antoine said [Bush won Election]] is a statement (I said something), but also a stating (of the statement "Bush won the Election"). > Let RS be a reified statement representing both S and > its occurrence in http://foo. Thus: > > (occursIn, RS, http://foo) > > is true. Is > > (occursIn, RS, http://bar) > > true? Yes, since RS only represent the Statement S. But the reification of the two statements above (RS1 and RS2) are 2 different statings of S. > It is true of RS, the representation of S. > It is not true of RS the representation of the > stating of S in http://foo. Bevause RS is not a representation of the stating of S. RS1 and RS2 are... Pierre-Antoine -- 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 Thursday, 21 December 2000 07:01:37 UTC