Re: use/mention and reification

Patrick Stickler wrote:
> 
> On 2002-01-25 16:08, "ext Martyn Horner" <martyn.horner@profium.com> wrote:
> 
> > I keep hearing `xml:lang'...
> >
> > Your two RDF statments (which could be qualified with an XML:lang
> > attribute) could be merged, in some sense, giving something like the
> > structure below with QValues. We have an application (in the field!)
> > which uses this type of indirection exactly for this purpose. It is
> > certainly a small extra effort for queries to handle it but it's
> > logical, covered by the schema and does not mess with the level of
> > quotation or assertion: it's just a pattern to match.
> 
> Insofar as qualified values are concerned, the anonymous node
> idiom seems reasonable. When we get to authority, source, etc.
> which relate to the entire statement, though, it seems far
> less correct to attach those qualifications to the object/value
> rather than to the statement itself.
> 
> I probably would have better off having used a property
> such as ex:authority rather than a language scope in my
> examples.
> 
> Patrick
> 
> --
> 
> Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
> Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
> Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com

In my experience, it is nearly always better to chose something other
than language to demonstrate a point. :-)

Language is a thorny one - though I find that, right or wrong, most
issues about interpretation (even the current data-typing issue) can be
visualized as or made to correspond to a language question. That's just
my personal fixation, I guess.

-- 
Martyn Horner <martyn.horner@profium.com>
Profium, Les Espaces de Sophia,
Immeuble Delta, B.P. 037, F-06901 Sophia-Antipolis, France
Tel. +33 (0)4.93.95.31.44 Fax. +33 (0)4.93.95.52.58
Mob. +33 (0)6.21.01.54.56 Internet: http://www.profium.com

Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 04:25:43 UTC