Re: Statements/Stating: a proposition

"McBride, Brian" wrote:
> 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?

I do not know any people on the list reluctant to consider that, even me as you suggest :)
I think we all agree that Statements and Statings are different things, and must be represented by different resources. The problem is: RDF M&S only provides one representation (the reified statement) without explicitely stating which one (from the Statement or the Stating) it represents...

<flame shield> I know that some of us think that it *is* explicit enough, but anyway there is a debate </flame shield>

> 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.

Yes, but *not* the Stating of the *same* Statement !

 [Pierre-Antoine said [Bush won Election]]

is a statement (I said something), but also a stating (of the statement "Bush won the Election").

> 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?

Yes, since RS only represent the Statement S.
But the reification of the two statements above (RS1 and RS2) are 2 different statings of S.

> 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.

Bevause RS is not a representation of the stating of S.
RS1 and RS2 are...


Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the
universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
(Bill Watterson -- Calvin & Hobbes)

Received on Thursday, 21 December 2000 07:01:37 UTC