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 RussellReceived on Monday, 27 November 2000 18:47:36 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 23 April 2007 18:19:44 GMT