Modelling a stating


>   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

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?


Received on Friday, 8 December 2000 12:12:07 UTC