Re: A triple is not unique.

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