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

Re: Statements/Reified statements

From: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>
Date: 23 Nov 2000 21:00:45 +0100
To: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Cc: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>, ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <87em02bgr6.fsf@astral.paranormal.se>
Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net> writes:

> Sergey Melnik wrote:
> 
> If we say "statements are resources", then you are saying the part is the
> whole.  I think that will entail some serious confusion.

Every part can be a microcosm of itself.  The statement as a resource
has it's own properties, as shown in the reification.


> t1    [s1, p1, o1]
> t2    [s1, p2, o2]
> 
> t3 [s2, p3, t1]
> t4 [s2, p4, o3]
> 
> But what if we allow a statement identifier to stand like a resource
> identifier as the subject of a node?  For instance the following:
> 
> t5 [t1, p5, o4]
> t6 [t1, p6, o5]
> 
> Now if our attention is on t3 and we advance to its object where do we end
> up?  It's ambiguous.  We could either be on the node consisting of {t5, t6}
> or we could be on the statement itself {t1} in the node consisting of {t1,
> t2}.   I hope we don't allow this ambiguity.

That's no ambiguity.  This is the resource t1:

 [t1, type, Statement]
 [t1, subject, s1]
 [t1, predicate, p1]
 [t1, object, o1]
 [t1, p5, o4]
 [t1, p6, o5]



As you can se, I don't want to get rid of the reification of the
statement.  I think it's important to be able to say things about the
statement / stating.

-- 
/ Jonas Liljegren

The Wraf project http://www.uxn.nu/wraf/
Sponsored by http://www.rit.se/
Received on Thursday, 23 November 2000 15:09:40 GMT

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