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

Re: A triple is not unique.

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 07:38:54 -0800
Message-ID: <3A19458E.75904A38@robustai.net>
To: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>
CC: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Jonas Liljegren wrote:

> It seems that we have a majority for this view:
>
>     The statement is the triple.  But the reified statement represents
>     a specific stating of a statement.  Each stating can have it's own
>     URI.

I agree, but:  The triple is not the fact, is not the 'abstract thing' , is not the
thing in reality; for that thing itself can never be put inside of these ascii strings
.. it might be made up of flesh and blood and not bits and bytes.  I believe that is
the thing to which Brian might refer were he to say a "fact interpreted".    But even
though we cannot put that real thing in our system we can try to point to it.  Let
~me~ try:

[Sub1] --label-->"Seth Russell"
[Sub1] --homePage-->[http://robustai.net/~seth/index.htm]
[Sub1] --email-->"seth@robustai.net"

[~Seth~] --theRealOf-->[Sub1]
[~Seth~] --rdf:type-->[thingsThatRepresentRealThingsOutThere]

Now you might call me silly .. cause everything i would assert of ~Seth~ would have
the same semantics as what i assert of Sub1.  But does it?  What if you tell your
system:

[You] --kill-->[~Seth~]

Woops!   ... don't read that into your system!

I think we need to get a ruling on what triples themselves mean according to the M&S
bible before we can tackle what their reifications mean.

Seth Russell
Received on Monday, 20 November 2000 10:50:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:46 GMT