- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:24:25 +0100
- To: "'Thomas Baker'" <tom@tombaker.org>
- Cc: "'RDF Working Group'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 8:31 PM, Thomas Baker wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 06:08:29PM +0100, Markus Lanthaler wrote: > > I think something like > > > > A relationship that holds between two resources at one time > > (i.e., an RDF statement) may not hold at another time. > > Hmm, but could this wording be read as implying that a statement > actually _is_ a relationship? It's more like a statement asserts a > relationship. Hmm... yeah, maybe. > > or even just > > > > An RDF statement that holds at one time may not hold at another > > time. > > However, an RDF statement would continue to "hold" its meaning, even if > its > relationship to reality were to change (because reality changes). The > challenge is to avoid the impression that properties or statements are > themselves mutable, as opposed to the relationship between two > resources. This > can perhaps be avoided if it's the "relationship between two resources" > that "holds". How about: > > A relationship that holds between two resources at one time, as > asserted by an RDF statement, may not hold at another time. > > or > > A relationship that holds between two resources, as asserted by > an RDF statement at one time, may not hold at another time. Works for me. We could perhaps make it even simpler by just saying A relationship that holds between two resources at one time may not hold at another time. Thoughts? -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2013 22:24:56 UTC