- From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 17:08:42 +0100
- To: Bill dehOra <BdehOra@interx.com>, ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>, "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Bill dehOra wrote: > > My interpretation of the spec is : > > * a statement can be talked about in RDF; > > * in order to do so, it must be reified (that is, be a node > > of the graph, have a URI) > > * its intrinsic properties are represented by rdf:subject, > > rdf:predicate, rdf:object > > That's the thing. I think you *have* to think this or some of RDF falls > apart. But statements are not resources. Darn you are right !!! I always took for granted that Statements actually *were* resources ! But the formal model does not say so... Which brings us back to the "A triple is not unique" thread... So Statement is a set, and its member are fully identified bu their subject/predicate/object. Well, we have the "abstract statements", they are part of the meta-language. Right. What about "reified statements" ? They are distinct from statements, according to the forlmal definition, so nothing prevents us to ionterpret them as "statings"... although I'm not sure this is what the authors meant !... FEEDBACK REQUIRED !!! Ora or Ralph, please, could you enlighten us :) FEEDBACK REQUIRED !!! > Maybe [Statements] are part of the metalanguage, yes > and maybe so are "reified statements". I don't think so... This is what makes RDF so interesting : it's ability to talk about itself. Pierre-Antoine -- Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us. (Bill Watterson -- Calvin & Hobbes)
Received on Monday, 20 November 2000 11:09:20 UTC