Re: I have a trouble with The RDF Model

Seth Russell wrote:
> Yes, this is where I need you help; because my proposal allows the
> apparently feared ability of a statement to refer to itself.
> 
> [stid5, subjectx, propertyx, stid5]
> 
> I don't believe that Serge's proposal suffers from this ill, but mine
> definitely does.

Sergey's too !
 [stid5, stid5, propertyx, objectx]
There is no fundamental difference between subject and object,
you can equaly write :

  [stid6, context1, asserts, stid1]
  [stid7, stid1, assertedBy, context1]


>  About [stid5, subjectx, propertyx, stid5]
>  Isn't there some way that we can make the semantics of this consistent?

It depends on the semantics of subjectx and propertyx,
but yes, it can definitely be semanticaly consistent :

This sentence has five words.
This sentence is in english.
This sentence begins with "This".
This sentence talks about itself.

Look at the RDF version of the last example above :

 [stidD, stidD, rdf:subject, stidD]

Funny, isn't it ?
Not very useful, but definitely consistent.

  Pierre-Antoine