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

RE: RDF Terminologicus

From: McBride, Brian <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 21:05:55 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F2395C7@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> 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.

I suggest that this is currently an unresolved issue.  Its great
to have a glossary, but it should remain neutral on topics that
are not resolved.

I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a broken record on this, but I
believe what m&s says is that a reified statement represents
a statement.

I've been interpreting that to mean that any property which is
true of a statement is true of any reified statement which
represents it, and vice versa.  It must therefore be true of 
any other reified statement representing that same statement.

In other words, if RS1 and RS2 are reified statements representing
the same statement S, the (p, RS1, o) => (p, RS2, o).

Received on Thursday, 4 January 2001 16:06:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:34 UTC