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

Re: [semanticweb] The level of abstraction (modeling problem)

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:00:47 -0800
Message-ID: <00bb01c1ba49$4a6cae60$657ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: <rector@man.ac.uk>
Cc: "ejchen77" <jchen@itri.org.tw>, <rector@man.ac.uk>, "RDF-LOGIC" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>, <semanticweb@yahoogroups.com>
From: "Alan Rector" <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>

> I would argue that the relationship "is manifest in" is
> fundamentally different from "is instance of" - e.g. an
> instance of a poem can be manifest in any number
> of instances of printed copies of that novel, and in
> the memory of someone who has memorized it.

And I would agree.  "Is manifest in" ranges over something that looks like a
context or a manifested document.  So I think that we will need both
relations "is instance of"  and "is manifested in" to model our situation.
Please see the mentograph:
http://robustai.net/mentography/reifyRDF_stating_not_statement2.gif

Note the difference between this and the last one:
http://robustai.net/mentography/reifyRDF_stating_not_statement.gif
where I tried to make statings a class.   I like your way better, but now we
need to agree on a good name for the relation that I put in red.

I would also like to note that now that the WG has all but decided on
statings rather than statements, that the 'C' word (Context) which you have
introduced here lurks naturally around the corner :)

Seth Russell
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 15:04:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:42 GMT