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

RE: RDF terminology

From: Bill dehOra <BdehOra@interx.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:26:15 -0000
Message-ID: <23CF4BF2C499D411907E00508BDC95E131F837@ntmews_01.interx.com>
To: "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
Cc: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

> >Representation: Can it be added that members of the RDF 
> Formal Model, in
> >implementations, are always representations of these entities?
> 
> Er, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.  That 
> implementations 
> always deal in _representations_ of the formal model?

An implementation would never be manipulating a statement but its machine
representation; that way we can have the same statement on different
machines or the same logical machine in different addresses without
confusion.


> >Quoting: is this a generalisation of reification? That is, I don't
> >understand the how Quoting a statement stands in relation to 
> a statement
> >reification.
> 
> I'd say that reification is one way that a statement can be 
> quoted.  Other 
> forms of quoting (e.g. TimBL's semantic toolbox) are not 
> recogizable as 
> reification (as we define it).  I think.

Ok.

 
> >Model: "(b) An RDF Model, meaning a collection of RDF 
> statements". Maybe:
> >"(b) An RDF Model, meaning a collection of RDF statement 
> representations"
> 
> Hmmm... how formalistic do we want to be here?  I think we 
> may have had 
> discussions about RDF models that have not been dependent on 
> any specific 
> representation thereof.

Ok.
 

> >-Candidate additions...

> RFC2396 has a less general definition of (or assumption about) 
> 'entity':  as some data.  

I'd be fine with the RFC2396 definition framed as a referent for RDF
purposes.

 
> >Resource: same as RDF Resource. More properly "RDF Resource" 
> is used to
> >distinguish "Resource" from "Web Resource".
> 
> I'd prefer to be more neutral about it being a web resource or RDF 
> resource.  Sometimes (often) it may be both.  Here's my offering:
> 
>    Resource:
>      May refer to an RDF resource or a Web Resource. Some 
> resources may be 
> both.
>      In discussion of RDF, this term is often used to mean 
> RDF Resource.

Ok, but I mention it since the M&S seems to declare Resource to be RDF
Resource.


> >Resource Identifier: "a URI plus optional anchor ID".[M&S] Resource
> >Identifiers are understood to name Resources.
> 
> My offering:
> 
>    RDF Resource Identifier, Resource Identifier:
>      A URI plus optional anchor ID.[M&amp;S]
>      RDF Resource Identifiers are understood to name RDF Resources.

Ok.
 

> >Referent: the entity that a Resource describes. [M&S]
> 
> I think this needs to be qualified as RDF Resource.

I think RDF Resource and Resource are the same if you follow the M&S, but
fine.


> >Assertion Context: [...]

> Hmmm... I think this idea is up for debate.  Also:
> (a) I think a context can assert axiomatic truths without 
> being "top-level".

I'm not sure about this... hmm.


> (b) I'm not sure that any context is truly "top level".  Any 
> context is 
> (possibly implicity) contained within another.  And might not 
> a writer 
> create an Escher-esque scenario in which the whole world or universe 
> (including their writing) is a figment of the imagination of 
> a character in 
> their writing.  Whither "top-level" now ?-)

Sometimes Contexts are at the top though. When they are they can be said to
be axiomatic, or the current frame of reference. I've got no problem with
these things being dynamic and moving in and out of axiomatic status.


> However, I could accept a simpler definition along the lines of:
> 
>    Assertion Context:
>      A context that asserts only axiomatic truths;  i.e. 
> statements whose
>      interpretation (and truth) is not dependent on any 
> enclosing context.

That sounds better. The idea of just saying "stop regressing at this
Context", is a strictly pragmatic one, formalists may well be cringing at
it.


> >Star: the graph of a Reification, where the Reified 
> Statement has the four
> >arcs (type, subject predicate, object) in question.
> 
> I've never felt a need for this -- yet.  I'm inclined to put 
> it on hold.

Ok.


-Bill

-----
Bill de hÓra  :  InterX  :  bdehora@interx.com
Received on Friday, 5 January 2001 13:27:03 GMT

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