- From: McBride, Brian <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:29:37 -0000
- To: ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
> "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. Yup - me being wrongheaded. > 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 ! 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