W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2001

Re: RDF Terminologicus

From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 11:47:02 +0100
Message-ID: <3A5454A6.BDC4D3BF@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
CC: Bill de hÓra <dehora@acm.org>, RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Graham Klyne wrote:
> Web Resource:
>    Anything that is identified by a URI [RRC2396].
> RDF Resource:
>    [See RDF M&S section 5]  Note that an RDF resource is not necessarily a
>    web resource, though any web resource can be an RDF resource.
>    Consider:  http://foo.com/#a and http://foo.com/#b name distinct RDF
>    resources, but not distinct web resources.

I like the idea of distinguishing Web resources and RDF resources.
As a matter of fact, Web resources are identified by URIs, RDF resources are identified by URI references.
About your example, I would rather say that both URI references are *not* web resources,
but that they are both "akin" to the web resource http://foo.com/ .

> Stand for:
>    A labelled entity that is used in descriptions indicate some entity or
>    concept.

I don't get this one.

> Reification (of a statement):
>    [See RDFM&S section 5]  A resource that stands for the statement
>    together with the four statements that describe the statement.
>    In my opinion, a reification of a statement is not unique: 
>    there may be more than one reification of any given statement.

It is true that, according to M&S, the reification is the resource *and*
the four triples. I would hence add

Reified statement:
    The resource which stands for a statement in a reification of
    that statement.

which may be confusing, but looks a useful distinction. To sum it up :
reification : resource + 4 statements (s,p,o,type)
reified st. : resource

I agree with you about the fact that a statement (which is unique, cf M&S s5)
may have more than one reification.

> Stating:
>    An assertion that some statement is true in some context.
>    (or should that be:
>    An assertion in some context that some statement is true.
>    ?)
>    NOTE:  this assertion is a statement separate from the
>    statement asserted to be true.

Funny definition.
At first sight, I would have said I disagreed with it,
but the time I wrote it, I was not so sure...

If I write

  s1: [Bush won Elections]
  s2: [s1   ist Context1]

from your definition, s2 is a stating of s1.
But we have no statings of s2, which has been clearly stated, though...
To get a stating of s2, I have to write

  s3: [s2   ist Context2]

and so on...
I like that idea of statings.


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 05:47:07 UTC

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