- From: Bill dehOra <Wdehora@cromwellmedia.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 16:31:27 +0100
- To: "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@dial.pipex.com>, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Well, RDF is a language (written in a language for writing languages). RDF is for making statements about resources. :-----Original Message----- :From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@dial.pipex.com] :Sent: 08 May 2000 11:29 :To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com :Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org :Subject: Re: Anonymous resource names -versus- variables : : :At 02:17 PM 5/5/00 +0200, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com wrote: :>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' ??? : :I wouldn't phrase it quite that way (too many 'stands's ;-) : :I'll try and construct an example of what I was saying: : :Consider maps: the real world is continuous, and exists all :together. But :a map describes some defined part of the world (both :geographically and :kinds of features). One map may show the position of a place :with respect :to geographical features, and another may show its connections :with respect :to transport (e.g. street map vs Underground map of London). :I think maps :are like documents containing (representations of) RDF :statements, and the :real world is what contains the universe of all the things :described by the :maps, and more. : :Further, imagine that the London Transport authority maintain :a master map :showing where to find all the instances of Underground Maps :displayed in :the subway system, and a summary of the features contained on these :maps. This might be thought of as a "statement about :representations of :statements". : :A statement that a map was last updated on a particular date :is different :from saying something about the place where it is posted. : :Much of what we know about the real world may be conveyed by :maps, but we :need to be able to distinguish between a map and the world it :describes. When we destroy a map, the places it describes continue to :exist in the same relationships to each other. Similarly, I :think that the :logic (whatever that may be) of some collection of RDF :statements should :stand in the model and associated schema separately from any :document that :may contain (some representation of) those statements. : :#g : :------------ :Graham Klyne :(GK@ACM.ORG) :
Received on Monday, 8 May 2000 11:29:33 UTC