- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 13:52:24 -0400
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Brian--
It's not clear to me what distinguishing "statement" and "triple"
accomplishes in this context. Are we doing "uses" and "mentions"
again? The M&S (Section 5) says:
"(P162) There is a set called Statements, each element of which is a
triple of the form
(P163) {pred, sub, obj}"
I naturally read that as saying that the triples were statements as far
as RDF was concerned (if they weren't, why wasn't the set called
"Triples" instead of "Statements"?). Morever:
"(P179) From the standpoint of an RDF processor, facts (that is,
statements) are triples that are members of Statements."
I'd agree that the M&S is not a canonical example of precise language,
but as long as we're talking about what the M&S says (or seems to say!),
it seems to say to me that triples are statements.
Regarding the graph representation:
"(P165) We can view a set of statements (members of Statements) as a
directed labeled graph: each resource and literal is a vertex; a triple
{p, s, o} is an arc from s to o, labeled by p. "
This says a triple is an arc in the graph. So if a triple is a
statement (by my reading), then an arc is a statement. Maybe some more
elaboration would help. When you say:
> If I write:
> >
> > <:sky> <:is> <:blue> .
> > <:sky> <:is> <:blue> .
> >
> > I clearly have two triples.
Do you? Or do you have two lines of structured text that represent the
same triple? The same problem exists with "tuples". You said:
> > o a statement is an abstraction; its a tuple with three components, subject,
If distinct tuples are identified by three distinct components, then
however many times I write the same three components down, I've still
stated only one tuple. Is a triple identified only by its components,
or by something else too? If I say "Frank is confused" 500 times, have
I made 500 (true) statements, or only one?
--Frank
Brian McBride wrote:
>
> Pat Hayes wrote:
>
> >> Just checking we are clear what is being renamed.
> >
> >
> > Well, I thought I was clear, but now I am completely confused.
> >
> >> M&S uses the term predicate for a component of a statement.
> >
> >
> > That means a triple, right? Or a [node/edge/node] combination in an RDF
> > graph. Or does 'statement' mean something else? Right now, as I
> > understand it, there are triples in Ntriples, pieces of graph in the
> > graph syntax, and more complicated pieces of syntax in RDF/XML. Which of
> > these is called a statement?
>
> You have put your finger on a key question, that I think we need to get clear if
> we are to reconcile the language of the old M&S with the new model theory.
>
> We are dealing here with two formal models. M&S has a formal model, and we have
> the new model theory. I think that M&S has the concept of statement and the new
> model theory does not.
>
> My *personal* reading of M&S is that statement and triple meant two different
> things.
>
> o a statement is an abstraction; its a tuple with three components, subject,
> ...
>
> o a triple is a concrete representation of a statement, e.g. state in a
> computer memory, markings on paper etc.
>
> [I'm not defending this model; I'm just trying to express it. It may well be
> full of contradictions]
>
> How do these concepts relate to the new model theory. Well, a triple in
> n-triples is pretty clearly still a triple. What is an arc in a graph? Not a
> statement, I think. If I write:
>
> <:sky> <:is> <:blue> .
> <:sky> <:is> <:blue> .
>
> I clearly have two triples. I would also have two arcs in one of your graphs
> (until it got tidied). But to M&S, (as I interpret it, others would disagree)
> there is only one statement, because both triples denote the same statement.
>
> I find no concept similar to statement in the new model theory.
>
> Brian
--
Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 13:57:11 UTC