# 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 :)

Oops.  Sorry Pierre-Antoine.  I did not mean to be rude.
Dashed a response off too quickly.

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

You are right.  But fundamentally a resource is still representing
two different things, so a contradiction is possible.  All
that is needed is a property that is true of one and not the other.

My example was too simple, but was trying to make the point more
clearly.  And failed :(

>
>  [Pierre-Antoine said [Bush won Election]]
>
> is a statement (I said something), but also a stating (of the
> statement "Bush won the Election").

So let S be [Bush, won, the election] and RS a reified statement
representing it.  Let S occur in http://foo.

Let T be [RS, occursIn, http://foo] and RT a
refied statement representing it.  T occurs in http://bar.

If I understand you correctly:

RT represents both the statement T and the occurrence of S
in http://foo.  Have I got that right yet?

Is [RT, occursIn, http://bar] true?
It is true of the statement T, but not of the stating of S.

Brian
```

Received on Thursday, 21 December 2000 07:29:51 UTC