- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:12:16 +0200
- To: "ext Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>
- Cc: <www-archive@w3.org>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
On Mar 10, 2004, at 12:43, ext Chris Bizer wrote: > >>> >>> Maybe it is also helpful in this context to use the statement/stating >>> terminology: >>> >>> 1. RDF Statements don't involve speech acts. So statements are >>> contained in >>> graphs that describe themselves as :G1 x:GraphQualificationProperty >>> x:unasserted or are described somewhere else somehow as unasserted. >> >> Right. >> >>> 2. RDF Stating: Through a speech act a statement becomes a stating. >>> So >>> a >>> stating is the result of an agent claiming a Statement. >> >> Not sure I follow this. Can you provide an example? >> > > Taking Pat's "asserting is a speech act", I tried to link the existing > terminology "Statement/Stating" used inconsistently today to your > x:GraphQualificationProperty. I think the term RDF Stating is used > mostly, > when speaking about agents claiming stuff in an distributed, "social" > environment. The term RDF Statement more in situations where RDF is > just > used as datamodel / knowledge model without taking agents and speech > acts > into account. Thinking more about it and seeing that we just discuss > the > agent scenario, the idea of somehow linking it with the > x:GraphQualificationProperty doesn't appear that convincing any more > ;-( > Hmmm.... couldn't one view the insertion of graph qualification statements specifying assertion and authentication as being equivalent to a "speech act", the graph being the utterance? ??? Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2004 08:12:22 UTC