- From: Guha <guha@epinions-inc.com>
- Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 09:17:47 -0800
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- CC: RDF Interest Group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, swick@w3.org
The reified triple is not meant in anyway to assert that the triple is part of any graph. So, for example, one could state : believesIn(Fred, shape(Earth, Flat)) without asserting that the earth was flat. Guha Dan Brickley wrote: > Here's a puzzle: is an RDF Statement (ie. a triple in reified form, an > instance of the class Statement) a representation of some "stating" of a > subject/predicate/object triple, or a representation of the abstract > statement that is being asserted? > > I believe the model spec is a little unclear on this, but that the answer > should be that there are two distinct concepts ('assertions events' or > 'statings' versus 'statements') and that our reified 'RDF Statement' > objects model the latter. A particular statement, then, could be asserted > by different people on different dates in different contexts. Each of > these claims might have PICS-labelesque attributes such as being 'by' > some agent, 'on' some date. Whereas the statements themselves are > timeless. > > Three questions: > > 1. Does this distinction seem clear? > > 2. Does my reading of the meaning of 'RDF Statement' seem correct? > > 3. If so, can we use algorithms such as those Sergey proposes to assign > globally unique, identical identifiers to each statement to facilitiate > data aggregation? (eg. any occurance of [bill clinton] > --livesIn->[America] could have a canonical statement URI generated, > like uuid:423423532453443 such that all graphs including reference to this > statement could usefully be aggregated). Each 'stating' of the claim that > [bill clinton]--livesIn->[America], by contrast, could have a different > URI since it would happen of a different date by a different agency. > > Am I making any sense? > > Dan > > -- > danbri@w3.org
Received on Sunday, 12 December 1999 12:17:34 UTC