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

RE: RDF Terminologicus

From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 15:57:01 +0000
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20010104154412.02970c50@pop.dial.pipex.com>
To: Bill dehOra <BdehOra@interx.com>
Cc: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>, RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 02:06 PM 1/4/01 +0000, Bill dehOra wrote:

> > >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.

But do we all mean the same thing by it?  ;-)

>  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.

Nothing in any of these definitions should, per se, limit what an 
implementer can do within the accepted framework of RDF.

As for aggregating:  I think different reifications may refer to the same 
statement but still be distinct reifications.  One reification may be used 
to say something about one stating, and another to say something different 
about that statement. E.g.

    [s1] --rdf:type------> [rdf:Statement]
    [  ] --rdf:property--> [p]
    [  ] --rdf:subject---> [s]
    [  ] --rdf:object----> [o]
    [  ] --atTime--------> "Yesterday"
    [  ] --truth---------> "True"

and

    [s2] --rdf:type------> [rdf:Statement]
    [  ] --rdf:property--> [p]
    [  ] --rdf:subject---> [s]
    [  ] --rdf:object----> [o]
    [  ] --atTime--------> "Today"
    [  ] --truth---------> "False"

I.e. a given statement that was true yesterday is not true today.  In each 
case it is the same statement being described, but the different 
reifications cannot be aggregated without creating a conflict of meaning.

Maybe this is what you intended -- I'm just trying to be clear.

> > 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.

Thank you ... though I think terminology alone would be less helpful than 
terminology supported by some explanation of the concepts thus referenced.

#g
Received on Thursday, 4 January 2001 11:22:38 GMT

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