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

Re: Statements/Stating: a proposition

From: Gabe Beged-Dov <begeddov@jfinity.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 08:36:48 -0800
Message-ID: <3A4231A0.11F2A59A@jfinity.com>
To: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
CC: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
I'm confused. I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate what seems to
be your clear understanding of the distinction between the various
constructs/terms like "statement", "Statement", "reified statement",
"stating", "Stating", "reified statement resource", "representation of
*", "model of *", "occurrence of *", "context" etc.. If you could also
distinguish between what you think is part of the M&S and what you
think *should* be part of the M&S that would also be helpful. If you
enhanced your tutorial to incorporate these elaborations, I would
personally find it very useful. 

I used the distinction between "stating" and "quoting" in my
divination of the M&S [1] but that doesn't seem to have gotten any
traction with folks. Maybe I should try again :=(



Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote:
> "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 10:36:27 UTC

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