W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Named graphs etc

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:12:16 +0200
Message-Id: <8DB1F31D-7294-11D8-BB5D-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>
Cc: <www-archive@w3.org>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
To: "ext Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>

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 Stickler
Nokia, Finland
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2004 08:12:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:32:25 UTC