- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 10:32:49 -0800
- To: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
"McBride, Brian" wrote: > The number 1 is not unique. If you have a 1 in your computer > and Dan has a 1 in his computer, and I refer to the number 1, > then which 1 am I referring to? > > The point here is that the triple is abstract. What you have > in your computer is a representation of a triple, not the triple > itself. Well I would agree with you if you say that a triple will attempt to represent an abstract thing, and that when the same triple is asserted in different contexts, they might all refer to the same abstract thing. Of course we're happy when that happens because we have communicated. But when I talk *about* any triple, I am not talking about the abstract thing - rather I am talking about its representation in some context. The point here is that there is no triple that can be the actual abstract thing. Sorry, ya really can't do it ! So any triple is not abstract, rather it is a tangible part of a model. > Giving a URI to a triple will not help. You'd have to decide if > you the URI named the triple - i.e. the abstract thing - in which > case you have changed nothing, or a particular representation of > a triple, in which case you don'thave a means to refer to the > triple. There are two separate issues here: 1) Deciding if two representations refer to the same abstract thing , and 2) Deciding to which representation we refer. I agree that giving a URI to a triple will not help with the former at all. But giving a URI to a particular statement will help with the latter. If I may add informal URIs to Jonas's example: Model 1: S1: god notplayswith dice S2: S1 statedBy einstein S3: S1 statedAt 1950-04-10 Model 2: S4: god notplayswith dice S5: S4 statedBy jonas S6: S4 statedAt 2000-11-17 Then I can say something like: S7: S4 is plagiary Because that statement as described by S5 and S6 is plagiary. We could do the same thing without URI's if we make the assumption that triples are unique within a particular collection of statements (translation within a model); so by identifying the collection and the triple we can refer to a particular statement. But I find it unclear after reading M&S how we can even communicate the fact that a particular statement belongs in a particular collection. ...so I am really confused! Seth Russell
Received on Sunday, 19 November 2000 13:31:34 UTC