- From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 11:15:34 +0000
- To: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>
- Cc: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
At 09:51 AM 11/23/00 +0100, Jonas Liljegren wrote:
>Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com> writes:
>
> > I think it is necessary to distinguish between 'statings' and
> > 'quotings' of statements. Reification is a way to do that within
> > the RDF model as currently defined. Are there others?
>
>Every statement is stated in a specific context. The stating is true
>within the context and othervise false.
>
>One common way to implement RDF is to have a fact boolean for every
>statement indicating if it's only a reified statement or the actual
>statement.
OK, that seems reasonable. In particular, it seems a reasonable
implementation of something that describes the same properties as
reification per RDF M&S.
>But it would be better to indicate in which models/contexts the
>statement is true.
Well, yes, I happen to emphatically agree [1].
>This means that a quoting of a statement not considered to be true can
>be done by refereing to a statement belonging to another
>model/context.
>
>
>This means that instead of four, we have five:
>
>{ uri, pred, subj, obj, model }
I considered that approach for [1], but have preferred to use properties to
create the association between statement-resource and context (model). The
above approach allows a given statement to be associated with only one
context/model, where properties allow a given statement-resource to be
incorporated into any number of contexts/models. That seems very much more
in line with the RDF philosophy of "anyone can say anything about anything".
#g
--
[1] (Work in progress)
<http://public.research.mimesweeper.com/RDF/RDFContexts.html>
------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Thursday, 23 November 2000 06:53:13 UTC