W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > February 2002

RE: reification test case

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:58:23 -0800
Message-ID: <006a01c1ada5$8a870c80$657ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "RDF-LOGIC" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
If the *only* arcs on a Bnode are (rdf:type, rdf:subject, rdf:predicate,
rdf:object) then I suppose that there is really only the one
~description(1)~ and all other occurrences of that ~description(1)~ **in the
same document** are simply duplicates.   Just like the description "the
first sentence of this email" is the same description wherever it appears
and has the same denotation wherever it appears in this email.  Even though
it does denote a different sentence when it appears in a different email.

Now if we add a 5th arc to such a Bnode (for example time, place, author,
trust, etc)  then that ~description(2)~ certainly is not the same as
~description(1)~.   Just like "the first sentence of this email which begins
with 'E' " is not the same description as "the first sentence of this email"
nore does it denote the same sentence in this email.

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>

>I vote yes.

I vote no. See mentograph:

>This is what "triple" means, after all, no?
>if x=xx, y=yy, z=zz, then (x,y,z)=(xx,yy,zz), no?
>| There is a set called Statements, each element of which is a
>| triple of the form
>| {pred, sub, obj}
>  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#model

Hmmm.... does the MT automatically smush Bnodes in the same graph with the
same identical property arcs, even though the Bnode subject is different ?

>If we're not going to take the implications of reification
>seriously, let's just throw it out.

If we throw it out how are we to describe statements?

Seth Russell
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 13:01:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:37 UTC