- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 07:38:54 -0800
- To: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>
- CC: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Jonas Liljegren wrote: > It seems that we have a majority for this view: > > The statement is the triple. But the reified statement represents > a specific stating of a statement. Each stating can have it's own > URI. I agree, but: The triple is not the fact, is not the 'abstract thing' , is not the thing in reality; for that thing itself can never be put inside of these ascii strings .. it might be made up of flesh and blood and not bits and bytes. I believe that is the thing to which Brian might refer were he to say a "fact interpreted". But even though we cannot put that real thing in our system we can try to point to it. Let ~me~ try: [Sub1] --label-->"Seth Russell" [Sub1] --homePage-->[http://robustai.net/~seth/index.htm] [Sub1] --email-->"seth@robustai.net" [~Seth~] --theRealOf-->[Sub1] [~Seth~] --rdf:type-->[thingsThatRepresentRealThingsOutThere] Now you might call me silly .. cause everything i would assert of ~Seth~ would have the same semantics as what i assert of Sub1. But does it? What if you tell your system: [You] --kill-->[~Seth~] Woops! ... don't read that into your system! I think we need to get a ruling on what triples themselves mean according to the M&S bible before we can tackle what their reifications mean. Seth Russell
Received on Monday, 20 November 2000 10:50:30 UTC