- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 15:04:22 +0100
- To: aswartz@upclink.com
- Cc: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, danbri@w3.org, fmanola@mitre.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
aswartz@upclink.com wrote: >jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com> wrote: > >>> "Are members of the class rdf:Statement uniquely picked out by their >>> predicate/subject/object properties?" >> >> [while enjoying holiday/family time] >> to me this is axiomatic when talking about a function such as >> statement = triple(s,p,o) > >Well if this is true than we're going to need another class to undo this >effect. The same triple can be asserted by multiple people and often we'll >want to talk about the stating. Hmm, perhaps: > > [ a :Stating ; rdf:value { :TestCases :utility :high } ] > >would work. > >(To DaveB, the {} in this example should resolve to a single reified >triple.) Well if you write in "an-aaron-uri" :TestCases :utility :high. (1) then you (with "an-aaron-uri" as your representative) have asserted statement (1). Also if Dan Connolly writes in "a-danc-uri" :TestCases :utility :high. then he (with "a-danc-uri" as his representative) is asserting that *same* statement (1). Now if DanBri writes in "a-danb-uri" { :TestCases :utility :high } :targetOf :sw. (2) he's asserting a statement (2) with statement (1) as subject (but he's not asserting (1)) and his {} is acting as a representative for statement (1). Of course (1) could be generalized to formulae (having an identity which is strictly their content). -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Sunday, 27 May 2001 09:04:51 UTC