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

RE: RDF Terminologicus

From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 13:18:22 +0000
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20010105131535.029d8710@pop.dial.pipex.com>
To: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "RDF Interest (E-mail)" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Brian,

I accept your comments about the current M&S.  My hope is that any (or 
most) agreement on terminology can survive any clarification of the RDF 
spec.  (I don't see the terminology document being in any way normative 
w.r.t. RDF itself, but helping us to improve our communications _about_
RDF.)

#g
--

At 12:28 PM 1/5/01 +0000, McBride, Brian wrote:
>Hi Graham,
>
> > I've started an HTML document with these in.  In reification
> > of a graph,
> > would you allow "collection" rather than "bag", to allow some
> > wiggle room
> > in the exact representation?
>
>Right now, I'd probably say it should be a bag, but thats not as
>negative as it sounds.  I think its important to position this
>concept relative to the context concept you have been championing.
>
>I divide these discussions into two tracks:
>
>   o clarifying the current specs
>   o future developments
>
>The reification of a graph concept to me is in the clarifying the
>current specs track.  To me, contexts are an important new
>development.
>
>I believe that contexts have extra semantics
>over just being a collection of statements, that they need the
>machinery of the logic layer - interpretations and that sort of
>thing to do them properly.  The RDF layer alone does not have the
>machinery  - all it can do are collections of statements.
>
>So in terms of the RDF layer, a graph is an unordered collection
>of statements.  BAG is the right construct for representing that.
>SEQ and ALT just don't make sense.  Further, m&s talks about
>description elements representing bags of reified statements which
>maps nicely onto the language that those bags and their contents
>are the reifications of the subgraphs defined by a description
>element.
>
>I share your concerns about the current definitions of bags - have
>ordered properties for the members of an unordered collection just
>seems bizare to me.  So I'd be sympathetic to a future spec defining
>improved collections.  But right now BAG is what we have, so in terms
>of working with the current spec, I think BAG is right.
>
>Contexts will bring a much richer and powerful semantics.
>
>Brian
>
>
> >
> > #g
> > --
> >
> >
> > >How about:
> > >
> > >RDF Graph:
> > >
> > >   a set of RDF statements.
> > >
> > >Reification of an RDF Graph
> > >
> > >   A bag containing the reifications of the statements in
> > the RDF graph
> > >
> > >Reified Graph
> > >
> > >   The bag in the reification of an RDF graph.
> > >
> > >Brian
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@Dial.pipex.com]
> > > > Sent: 01 January 2001 17:32
> > > > To: Bill de hÓra
> > > > Cc: RDF-IG
> > > > Subject: Re: RDF Terminologicus
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > OK, here's my shot:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > RDF Statement, Statement:
> > > >    [See RDFM&S section 5]
> > > >
> > > > RDF Description:
> > > >    [See RDFM&S]
> > > >    Construct containing representations of a number of
> > RDF statements
> > > >    about a specific RDF resource, and possibly some
> > > > additional statements.
> > > >
> > > > Description [of]:
> > > >    (As opposed to RDF Description)
> > > >    Language or data structure providing information about
> > > > some entity or
> > > >    concept.
> > > >
> > > > Stand for:
> > > >    A labelled entity that is used in descriptions indicate
> > > > some entity or
> > > >    concept.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Representation:
> > > >    A data structure (abstract or concrete) that captures some
> > > > essential
> > > >    properties of some entity or concept.
> > > >
> > > > Representing [x]:
> > > >    Being a representation of [x] (see above)
> > > >
> > > > Context:
> > > >    An environment within which some statements are taken
> > to be true.
> > > >
> > > > Quoting:
> > > >    A reference to a statement without necessarily making any
> > > > assertion about
> > > >    its truth or falsity.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Model:
> > > >    (I've tried to stop using this term, since it has a
> > quite specific
> > > >    meaning to logicians, that is not the same as what I would
> > > > regard as
> > > >    its "natural" meaning.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > #g
> > > > ------------
> > > > Graham Klyne
> > > > (GK@ACM.ORG)
> > > >
> >
> > ------------
> > Graham Klyne
> > (GK@ACM.ORG)
> >

------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Friday, 5 January 2001 09:13:55 GMT

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