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

Re: Reification thing questions

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 07:29:15 -0800
Message-ID: <019901c1ae59$dea719e0$657ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: "RDF Logic" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
From: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>

> > For example:
> >
> > foo:bar goo:dar poo:sar.
> >
> > [
> > rdf:type rdf:Statement;
> > rdf:subject foo:bar;
> > rdf:predicate goo:gar;
> > rdf:object: poo:sar;
> > ex:time "9:15PM"
> > email::mid  0$657ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com ;
> > ex:documentLocation  :SethsOutbox
> > ]
> >
> > The description above describes the triple as it existed momentarily in
my
> > out box.  It does not describe the copy of that same triple as it exists
in
> > your inbox.
>
> Uhhh... now I'm confused as to which "thing" we are talking about.
> I thought the "thing" was the bNode with rdf:type rdf:Statement.
> You seem to now be equating "thing" with the triple. Or have I
> just gotten gonzo confused ;-)
>
> If the "thing" is the reification, and if the reification is copied,
> then of course the copy describes the original statement as accurately
> and completely as the original reification. Why wouldn't it?

I agree.  Since there is both a triple in the document as well as a
description of that triple in the same document, when the document is
copied, the description of the triple still refers to the original triple.
But it does not refer to the triple in the document in your email in box.
This is a very carefully contrived case :)

Seth Russell
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2002 10:32:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:41 GMT