- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 12:32:57 -0800
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- CC: www-rdf-interest@w3c.org
Graham Klyne wrote: > Loosely, then, one might say that the context contains the > statements. Distinct from that model, the graph syntax uses a resource of > type context and a number of resources of type statement, the latter being > reifications of the statements. Yes I can now agree with that. However in order to make this consistent I needed to understand a new concept of explicit reification. Thanks to Pierre's superbly timed poll, I think i can now make the distinction, and see it in a mentograph, if not in the RDF model itself. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Dec/0017.html > >9. Reification of a triple {pred, sub, obj} of Statements is an element r > >of Resources representing the reified triple and the elements s1, s2, s3, > >and s4 of Statements such that > > > > s1: {RDF:predicate, r, pred} > > s2: {RDF:subject, r, subj} > > s3: {RDF:object, r, obj} > > s4: {RDF:type, r, [RDF:Statement]} > > I note: this clearly states that the reification of a statement is a > resource. If one accepts that the identifiers do not appear in the formal > model, then I think the reified statement must be unique, per Sergey's > comments. But I think the identifiers are in the formal model. Just how that is so is something that I'm still working on. > If I need > to talk about a particular stating being asserted and signed by Alice, and > another stating asserted and signed by Bob, I think I need to create two > new resources[.] that relates to the (unique) reification of [p s o]. I would like to place the period as indicated above. Hopefully this will be in the consensus. Is there any dissent? I almost think I see a glimmer of a consistent interpretation of context and reification. And the exciting thing is that it seems consistent with M&S. Thanks for the dialogue ... Seth Russell
Received on Sunday, 3 December 2000 15:29:59 UTC