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

Re: Statements/Reified statements

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 12:28:45 -0800
Message-ID: <3A1D7DFD.74BDC6B3@robustai.net>
To: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>
CC: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>, ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
Jonas Liljegren wrote:

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

I'll pass on that one.

> 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.

That breaks (makes ambiguous) our reference to t1.  From my way of thinking there
*must* be one and only one dereference of any arc in any particular
implementation  - otherwise we have utter chaos.  So if i say [s2, p3, t1] and
dereference the object, I would end up on the node you describe above.  And if I
say [context1, asserts, t1] and dereference the object, I *must* also end up on
the on the node you describe above.  But that is certainly not where I want to
be.    So you have solved the problem of reification but have created a nightmare
for the problem of context.   I think my solution consistently solves both the
context issue and the reification issue.

Seth Russell
Received on Thursday, 23 November 2000 15:26:40 GMT

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