- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 14:17:05 +0200
- To: " - *www-rdf-interest@w3.org" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Graham Klyne wrote: > This sparks a thought for me: RDF recognizes two "layers" of statements: > statements > statements about statements, via reification > > Your comments suggest another facet of RDF usage: > statements about representations of statements > > I sense that some discussion of RDF gets mired because of failure to > distinguish between statements, and some representation thereof. I regard > this as a vital distinction when considering trust representations (an > immediate concern for CC/PP). > > I regard RDF in terms of some homogeneous collection of statements (and am > thinking about building an experimental system that reflects this > view). Specific statements are added to the collection via documents that > contain representations --in XML or whatever-- but any meaning associated > with a statement must stand when a particular representation in a > particular document is stripped away. I can feel what you mean and please try to demonstate it! A representation 'stands for something' and a statement is 'something that stands' ??? Best regards, Jos De Roo --- AGFA PS This list is so 'interesting'... (Thanks Dan)
Received on Friday, 5 May 2000 08:17:09 UTC