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: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 10:34:07 +0100
Message-ID: <3A55950F.7AEA979F@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
CC: RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Graham Klyne wrote:
> >I guess we should refer to [RFC 2396] where TBL defines a resource as
> >"a mapping to an entity or a set of entities".
> >Web resources' entities are pieces of data, and the same URI can map to
> >more than one piece of data, depending on the retrieval context.
> >RDF resources' entities can also be human beings, places, etc...
> >When a resources maps to an entity,
> >we will often say that the resource represents/models/stands for the entity.
> 
> Ouch!  I was using entity above in a non-RFC2396 sense.

I think that the term "entity" in RDF2396 can be understood in its most general sense;
what is important to keep in mind is that resources are *not* entities, they map to them.
e.g. : the URI
  mailto:champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr
identifies a resource which "maps to" / "stands for" entities like my mailbox or myself,
depending on the use you make of it.
This is how I undestand RDF2396; there is no restriction on the definition of entity here.

> A simpler approach
> is to not try and define "stand for" and see if its use in the definition
> of 'reification' can "stand" unsupported

On the contrary, I think it is an important definition :
the terms "represents", "models" or "stands for" are quite intuitive,
and hence we use them a lot, so they deserve a formal definition.


> > > I think that "stating" is the basic mode of RDF:  every RDF statement is a
> > > stating.
> >
> >Darn, this becomes confusing.
> >You must be meaning that every <piece of RDF which results in a statement>
> >is a stating.
> >Am I right ?
> 
> I think that's close enough;  maybe we should focus on the offered
> definition of 'stating';  with the additional comment, I was trying to
> offer clarification but clearly achieved the opposite.

That's the burden of any definer :)
Actually, I got you right, but we have to be careful,
and I though your sentence *could* be confusing for some people.

  pA

-- 
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 Friday, 5 January 2001 04:34:10 GMT

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