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

RE: RDF Terminologicus

From: Bill dehOra <BdehOra@interx.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:06:51 -0000
Message-ID: <23CF4BF2C499D411907E00508BDC95E131F821@ntmews_01.interx.com>
To: "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@Dial.pipex.com>, Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
Cc: RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

> >I agree with you about the fact that a statement (which is 
> unique, cf M&S s5)
> >may have more than one reification.
> 
> I think a problem with the term "reified statement" is that 
> it suggests the 
> reification is unique (e.g. the "statement" part _is_ unique, 
> per M&S, 
> hence the implication that "reified statement" is unique.).  I would 
> suggest something like "reification resource" or "statement 
> resource" for 
> the purpose you describe.

"reified statement" seems to be common parlance. It could be kept and
instead outlined explicitly that a statement has an infinite number of
"reified statements" that refer to it, as opposed to more than one. That has
implications for aggregators. In one sense using four statements to reify a
statement is useful in that they can be aggregated/merged based on the
pattern held within the four rather than the nominal reifying resource
inside those four statements. That resource can be treated in most cases as
a search wildcard or a prolog underscore operator.


> >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.
> 
> Hmmm... tricky one, this.

Infinite regression always is. It's a common enough "problem" for formal
systems rather than belonging to RDF. No system can describe itself fully,
so do we need to worry about it unduly wrt to statings? 


> Thus, I would re-word my definition to be:
> 
> Stating:
>     The expression of an RDF statement [or set of statements]
>     in some context of discourse that is taken to be an assertion
>     of the truth of the statement[s] in that context.

This is very clear.  

A W3C note on terminology is an excellent idea.

-Bill
Received on Thursday, 4 January 2001 09:07:38 GMT

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