- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 08:56:15 -0400
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, dehora <dehora@eircom.net>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
I understood the point Brian was making (that what we call the middle component of the triple is one thing, and the kind of thing it *is* is something else; that's why I referred to "overloading" in my earlier message on this subject), but it's not clear we've yet arrived at a satisfactory resolution. The point is, if "predicate" is a misleading term to use in referring to the thing, ought we to continue to use it? Brian McBride wrote: > > > Pat Hayes wrote: > >>> I support this as a change in specification prose. >>> Please note there is an RDF property named "predicate"; it's used in >>> reification. Changing that is a different matter. >> >> >> >> Yes, I just remembered this myself, and agree that would be a >> different matter altogether. I think I now follow Brian's earlier >> message. The idea would be that subject/predicate/object are >> grammatical categories for the parts of a triple, but the actual thing >> indicated by the predicate - the thingie in the middle - is called a >> property, right? > > > > That is my interpretation of current usage. So in an api, I have: > > stmt.getSubject() > stmt.getPredicate() > stmt.getObject() > > to deconstruct a statement. > > stmt.getResource > > does not make sense. > > Brian > -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 08:55:22 UTC