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

Re: Statements/Stating: a proposition

From: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>
Date: 21 Dec 2000 17:12:01 +0100
To: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
Cc: ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <871yv1n48e.fsf@jonas.rit.se>
Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr> writes:

> "McBride, Brian" wrote:
>
> > You are right.  But fundamentally a resource is still representing
> > two different things, so a contradiction is possible.
> > All that is needed is a property that is true of one and not the other.
> 
> Statement and Statings are two nature of the *same* object.

Are we going in circles?


Someone suggested that it can be up to the application or schema to
interprete what should be considered statings.


I don't think we can separate the question from the question about
contexts.  Let me give another example.  (*All* the statements here is
reified):

 S1: [Bush, won, the election]
 S2: [S1, isTrue, yes]
 S3: [S1, isTrue, yes]
 S4: [S2, model, http://foo]
 S5: [S3, model, http://bar]

S2 and S3 represents the same statement. But their presens in two
diffrent models also makes them two diffrent statings.  We can merge
them, and they will still be two diffrent statings:

 S1: [Bush, won, the election]
 S2: [S1, isTrue, yes]
 S3: [S2, model, http://foo]
 S4: [S2, model, http://bar]

They are statings because we give them that meaning.

-- 
/ Jonas Liljegren

The Wraf project http://www.uxn.nu/wraf/
Sponsored by http://www.rit.se/
Received on Thursday, 21 December 2000 11:11:16 GMT

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