- From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 16:14:25 +0200
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- CC: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Graham Klyne wrote:
> >I must appologise for the diagram not being clear. The intent was to show
> >the whole statement being the subject of the 'asserted by' property which
> >would, I think, be consistent with the RDF model.
>
> Ah, OK. Consistent if the statement is reified.
Why should we make a difference between reifying a triple and reifying an arc,
that is :
___________
| S -(P)-> O| S -(P)-> O
|___________| |
| (assertedBy)
(assertedBy) |
| v
v Someone
Someone
(fig 1) (fig 2)
for me, both representation have the same meaning,
even though M&S uses fig.1, I find fig.2 more readable
NB : in fig.2 I'm not annotating property P ! I'm annotating this one arc
(the one labeled with P, going from S to O... looks like a triple, doesn'it ?)
Pierre-Antoine
--- Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Whatever is said in Latin sounds important.
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2000 10:09:04 UTC