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

Re: Statements/Reified statements

From: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>
Date: 28 Nov 2000 13:10:09 +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: <871yvwthzy.fsf@jonas.rit.se>
Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net> writes:

> 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]
> >
> > 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.

The t1 is the same.  If you say [context1, asserts, t1], that would
be an assetrion of the stating t1.  If that's not what you itended,
can you explain where you "want to be"?

/ Jonas Liljegren

The Wraf project http://www.uxn.nu/wraf/
Sponsored by http://www.rit.se/
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2000 07:07:20 UTC

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