- 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