- From: McBride, Brian <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 17:11:59 -0000
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3c.org
Pierre-Antoine, > about 3. I already submitted the idea below on the list, > but I will go further : the problem raised by Jonas is not a > problem ! If we do consider that the reified statement is > really a statement rather than a stating, then the date > should not be a property of st1, but rather of st2 and st4 ! > > st1: [Ora, creator, page] > st2: [st1, saidBy, Ralph] > st3: [st2, at, 01/12/99] > st4: [st1, saidBy, Pierre-Antoine] > st5: [st4, at, 01/12/00] > > The statements st2 and st4 are actually statings, not because > *every* reified statement be a stating, but because of the > particular meaning of their predicate "saidBy". Interesting approach. I'm uncomfortable with st2 - you say its a model of a stating. But its also, by definition a model of a statement. I've been thinking that statements and statings are disjoint, so how can this be? Are they disjoint? Can the same thing model both a statement and a stating? We need some more formal language here - its too confusing otherwise. What's key about the concept of a stating? Basically, its a multi-valued relation - e.g. (stating, stmt, location, by, time, weather-conditions,...) or in predicate terms: stating(stmt, location, by, time, weather-conditions, ...) In RDF we only have binary predicates, so this becomes type(x, stating) & stmt(x, ...) & location(x, ...) & by(x, ...) & time(x, ...) & weather-conditions(x, ...) & ... Can we deduce this from st1, st2, ...? Are there a set of axioms that would enable that deduction. And is it worth the computation over representing things more directly? Brian
Received on Friday, 8 December 2000 12:12:07 UTC