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 13:37:19 +0100
To: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Cc: ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <87snocs268.fsf@jonas.rit.se>
Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net> writes:

> I think my technique scales to different orders of reference very nicely :))

I'm worrid about that it doesn't seem to be the standard prefered way,
as I understand it.



Let me try to give you the alternative:

> Suppose we have a statement:
> 
> [id1, Bush, wonThe, Election]

[a1, Bush, wonThe, Election]

> Placing that in ~two~ ~different~ contexts?
> 
> [id2, context1, asserts, id1]
> [id3, context2, asserts, id1]

[a2, context1, type, Selection]
[a3, context1, _1, a1]

[a4, context2, type, Selection]
[a5, context2, _1, a1]

> Talking about it - reification:
> 
> [id4, s1, reifies, id1]
> [id5, s1, whateverP, whateverO]

[a6, a1, whateverP, whateverO]

> Putting information about reified statements in 2 different contexts:
> 
> [id6, context3, asserts, s1]
> [id7, context4, asserts, s1]

Same as contex1 and context2

> Talking about an assertion of the context of another statement:
> 
> [id8, s2, reifies, id3]
> [id9, s2, whateverP, whateverO]

[a7, context2, whateverP, whateverO]


-- 
/ Jonas Liljegren

The Wraf project http://www.uxn.nu/wraf/
Sponsored by http://www.rit.se/
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2000 07:34:15 GMT

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