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

Re: Statements/Reified statements

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:50:13 -0800
Message-ID: <3A22F335.EAA98FDE@robustai.net>
To: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>
CC: ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
Jonas Liljegren wrote:

> 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]

Ok, but I would like to compare our two different ways of solving context and
reification.  I have provided the quads for my way below.

Suppose we have a statement:

[id1, Bush, wonThe, Election]

Placing that in ~two~ ~different~ contexts?

[id2, context1, asserts, id1]
[id3, context2, asserts, id1]

Talking about it - reification:

[id4, s1, reifies, id1]
[id5, s1, whateverP, whateverO]

Putting information about reified statements in 2 different contexts:

[id6, context3, asserts, s1]
[id7, context4, asserts, s1]

Talking about an assertion of the context of another statement:

[id8, s2, reifies, id3]
[id9, s2, whateverP, whateverO]

So how would you do all that with your technique?

I think my technique scales to different orders of reference very nicely :))
Seth Russell
Received on Monday, 27 November 2000 18:47:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:33 UTC