RE: RDFm section 4.1 ambiguity

I just found the following in M&S formal model, rule 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 ...

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: McBride, Brian [mailto:bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 09 December 2000 15:40
> To: ML RDF-interest
> Subject: RE: RDFm section 4.1 ambiguity
> 
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> Well, I'm hoping this won't stimulate too much traffic
> on the list.
> 
> I think m&s got caught up some ambiguity in its use of
> terminology, particularly the word "model".
> 
> There is models in the sense of represents and models in
> the sense of describes.
> 
> The reification of a statement S is defined to be the set of
> four triples defining the statement's type, subject,
> predicate and object.  This collection of statements models
> S in that it describes some useful facts about it.
> 
> However, when we wish to assert something about a statement,
> e.g. [Brian, denies, S], the object of that statement is
> not the collection of statements that is the reification of
> S, but a single resource.  That single resource models S
> in the sense that it represents it - anything stated about
> that resource is being stated about S.
> 
> In the first sentence you quote, I suggest "model" is used
> in the sense of "representative".  In the last sentence it
> is used in the sense of "description".
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree with you that an editorial change to
> clarify this would be a good thing.
> 
> Brian
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill de hÓra [mailto:dehora@acm.org]
> > Sent: 09 December 2000 10:25
> > To: ML RDF-interest
> > Subject: RDFm section 4.1 ambiguity
> > 
> > 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > Folks,
> > 
> > The intent of the RDFm is to allow higher order statements. From the
> > RDFm:
> > 
> > "A model of a statement is the resource we need in order to be able
> > to make new statements (higher order statements) about the modeled
> > statement. [...] A model of a statement is called a reified
> > statement. [...] The resource with these four properties is not a
> > replacement for the original statement, it is a model of the
> > statement."
> > 
> > This section (4.1) offers two definitions of the model of a
> > statement. Is the model of the statement the resource, or, the
> > resource including these four properties? I don't much enjoy being a
> > language lawyer, but since this list goes round and round on
> > reification, we seem to need all the clarity we can get. I 
> assume the
> > correct interpretation is:
> > 
> > 1. the model of a statement is the resource and the four properties
> > in question.
> > 2. a reified statement is the model of that statement.
> > 
> > and that the use of the word resource in the first sentence 
> is simply
> > unfortunate. Would it be possible to have the first sentence of
> > section 4.1 above edited for future versions of the recommendation
> > and the definitions made more explicit? Something along the 
> lines of:
> > 
> > "In order to be able to make new statements (higher order 
> statements)
> > about a statement we need to model that statement. [...] A 
> model of a
> > statement is sometimes called a reified statement. [...] 
> The resource
> > along with these four properties is called the model of the
> > statement. A model of a statement is not a replacement for that
> > statement."
> > 
> > - -Bill de hÓra
> > 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: PGP 7.0
> > 
> > iQA/AwUBOjIIjuaWiFwg2CH4EQITawCgrl6UWG0LC+GpRag/noMr9MNPwbUAoM3z
> > mis77ONC3GMXsspSNLnDEXUm
> > =FjvH
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > 
> > 
>

Received on Saturday, 9 December 2000 12:47:35 UTC