- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 12:00:54 +0000
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- cc: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>, Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
>>>Graham Klyne said:
> At 09:51 AM 11/23/00 +0100, Jonas Liljegren wrote:
<snip/>
> >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".
Yes, that's the way I plan to *implement* in Redland i.e. add these quads:
(subject, predicate, object, <Statement Identifier>}
(<Statement Identfier>, isInModel, <Model Identifier>)
and similarly for other things like better container support.
However, this doesn't say whether <Statement Identifier> is a visible
external URI and whether the first quad stands for the statement,
reified statement, both, or either. And even if you could decide
those, does the statement have a truth value, making it a fact?
I wonder if a more formal published proposal (web page), refutation and
discussion of proposals might help us move things along here.
Dave
Received on Thursday, 23 November 2000 07:01:06 UTC