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

Re: Statements/Reified statements

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 12:00:54 +0000
To: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
cc: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>, Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <21372.974980854@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>Graham Klyne said:
> At 09:51 AM 11/23/00 +0100, Jonas Liljegren wrote:

<snip/>

> >This means that instead of four, we have five:
> >
> >{ uri, pred, subj, obj, model }
> 
> I considered that approach for [1], but have preferred to use properties to 
> create the association between statement-resource and context (model).  The 
> above approach allows a given statement to be associated with only one 
> context/model, where properties allow a given statement-resource to be 
> incorporated into any number of contexts/models.  That seems very much more 
> in line with the RDF philosophy of "anyone can say anything about anything".

Yes, that's the way I plan to *implement* in Redland i.e. add these quads:
  (subject, predicate, object, <Statement Identifier>}
  (<Statement Identfier>, isInModel, <Model Identifier>)

and similarly for other things like better container support.

However, this doesn't say whether <Statement Identifier> is a visible
external URI and whether the first quad stands for the statement,
reified statement, both, or either.  And even if you could decide
those, does the statement have a truth value, making it a fact?

I wonder if a more formal published proposal (web page), refutation and
discussion of proposals might help us move things along here.

Dave
Received on Thursday, 23 November 2000 07:01:06 GMT

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