- 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>
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 UTC