- From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 10:00:01 +0100
- To: Bill de hÓra <dehora@acm.org>
- CC: ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
Bill de hÓra wrote: > I don't know > whether Pierre's proposal actively causes contradications, but I > don't see how it's generally useful either in processing terms. > Pierre, help? I'll try... My concern is less about processing terms than about model issues : - we all agree about the fact that distinguishing Statements from Statings is very important. - on the other hand, the RDF M&S only provides 1 concept, which looks more like the Statement concept than the Stating concept - we could invent a brand new way of modeling Statings, but that would not be part of the RDF M&S My proposition was to say : if we look closer at the RDF M&S, we can find in it a "natural" way of modeling Statings : any statement S of the form [ R1 says S1 ] models a stating of the Statement S1 Contradictions can occur because a resource RS reifying the Statement S above models at the same time : - the Statement S itself - the Stating of S1 and it is not very clean to have an identifier (the URI of RS) identifying more than one object. But that does not bother me too much because I do not think that URIs all have a unique universal meaning, and anyway RDF will have to cope with that at some point... Pierre-Antoine -- Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us. (Bill Watterson -- Calvin & Hobbes)
Received on Thursday, 4 January 2001 04:00:06 UTC