W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > June 2001

Re: Why? Re: rdf as a base for other languages

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:45:16 -0700
Message-ID: <007f01c0eb9c$8d41d020$b17ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

> I'm sorry but I do not see the ability to define and use contexts in RDF
at
> all, nor do I see the ability to have an arc (triple) to be the object of
> another arc, even with reification.  Remember the only thing that RDF says
> about reified statements (i.e., resources with rdf:type rdf:statement) is
> that they have exactly one rdf:subject, one rdf:object, and one
> rdf:predicate.

Interesting!   I take it you are aware that a triple must be unique (at
least in an idealistic sense) in that each of it's component parts are
guaranteed to be unique by virtue of the URI system.  And that you are aware
that we can construct a symbol (which symbol is the riefied statement) that
stands for exactly one and only one triple, and if that that symbol can be
an object of a RDF statement.  Then can you tell me the difference between a
statement having a reified statement as it's object and a statement  having
the statement itself as it's object?   Me thinks you draw a distinction that
makes no difference.

Seth Russell
Received on Saturday, 2 June 2001 15:51:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:40 GMT