Re: Interpretation of RDF reification

From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@ontopia.net>
Subject: Re: Interpretation of RDF reification
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:04:39 +0100

> * McBride, Brian

[...]

> > The clarification that RDFCore made was between statements and  
> > statings.
> > There is a test case somewhere - I don't have the reference to hand.
> >
> > If x is, as you say a reification of (s, p, o) for some s, p, and o.
> >
> > And y is also a reification of (s, p, o), then is x necessarily the  
> > same
> > thing as y, e.g. does (x, wasStatedIn, foo) entail (imply) (y,
> > wasStatedIn, foo)
> >
> > The answer is no.  X represents the stating of the statement, or the
> > occurrence of the statement, not the statement itself.
> 
> Ah, I see. This was very clear. So X represents a stating, and there  
> can be many statings of the same statement, in the sense that I could  
> state it today, and you may have stated it yesterday, giving us two  
> statings of one statement?

I would be very careful about depending on "X represents the stating of the
statement".  This is not part of the formal meaning of reification in RDF,
but is, instead, at best the informal, unsanctioned intent that
applications might want to put on reification.

[...]

> Anyway, thanks a lot for this. It was very helpful.
> 
> --
> Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian               http://www.ontopia.net
> +47 98 21 55 50                             http://www.garshol.priv.no

peter

Received on Wednesday, 22 March 2006 21:19:32 UTC