RE: Statements/Stating: a proposition

Pierre-Antoine's proposal uses a reified statement to
represent both a statement and a stating.  My concern
is that this can lead to contradictions.

Consider a statement S which occurs in two documents,
http://foo and http://bar.

Let RS be a reified statement representing both S and
its occurrence in http://foo.  Thus:

   (occursIn, RS, http://foo)

is true.  Is

   (occursIn, RS, http://bar)

true?  It is true of RS, the representation of S.
It is not true of RS the representation of the
stating of S in http://foo.

Is this a contradiction?

I really don't understand why folks are so reluctant
to accept that statements and their occurrences are
two different concepts and need different resources
to model them.  What is the big deal?

Brian


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonas Liljegren [mailto:jonas@rit.se]
> Sent: 21 December 2000 11:02
> To: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN
> Cc: ML RDF-interest
> Subject: Re: Statements/Stating: a proposition
> 
> 
> Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr> writes:
> 
> > Any stating of st1 has an associated statement like
> > 
> >  [X stated st1] (st2)
> > 
> > or
> > 
> >  [st1 ist Context1] (st3)
> > 
> > Those (unique) statements are models of the statings,
> > and can be used that way
> > 
> >   [st2 at 12/3/2000]
> >   [st2 in foo.rdf]
> >   [st3 at 12/4/2000]
> >   [st3 in bar.rdf]
> > 
> > Quite satisfying to me. Hoping this could reach a consensus...
> 
> Acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> / Jonas Liljegren
> 
> The Wraf project http://www.uxn.nu/wraf/
> Sponsored by http://www.rit.se/
>

Received on Thursday, 21 December 2000 06:38:23 UTC