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

Re: Reification thing questions

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 21:35:07 +0200
To: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: RDF Logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B886008B.D4D5%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-02-05 18:08, "ext Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net> wrote:

> 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 :)
>> 
>> Hmmm... I'm gonna sleep on that one and let my subconscious
>> take a wack at it ;-)
> 
> There is nothing very philosophically subtle here, the trick is in the
> description "ex:documentLocation  :SethsOutbox".  You, of all people,  could
> probably help me with the exact URI that would be correct for ":SethsOutbox"
> and how the rdfs:range should be specified to make the example actually
> work.
> 
> Also when I was composing the email I didn know the exact Message-ID or time
> that it would appear in my out box ... please to correct the example above
> with the following data which is now known:
> Message-Id 014501c1ae04$00234c20$657ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com
> date 4 Feb 2002 21:14:34 -0800
> 
> Seth Russell

I guess I was questioning my gut reaction because it
seemed too simplistic, but I'll state it now anyway before
I go to bed...

There is only one triple, and it is abstract. It is
simply the combination of three values for S, P, and O.

Triples/statements may be expressed in various contexts, or
have different provenence, such that different reification
bNodes may have different additional properties to
subject, predicate, and object. But it's all the same
triple. It's all the same knowledge.

So when you say that the copy of the reified statement
describes the same triple, that is in the original document,
that doesn't seem quite right. The reification describes some
assertion of that triple within the context of your document
at a given point in time, but the triple itself was
not and is not in the document. It's nowhere. It's everywhere.

I need to go to bed.....  ;-)

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2002 14:34:06 GMT

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