- From: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>
- Date: 23 Nov 2000 21:00:45 +0100
- To: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Cc: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>, ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net> writes:
> Sergey Melnik wrote:
>
> If we say "statements are resources", then you are saying the part is the
> whole. I think that will entail some serious confusion.
Every part can be a microcosm of itself. The statement as a resource
has it's own properties, as shown in the reification.
> t1 [s1, p1, o1]
> t2 [s1, p2, o2]
>
> t3 [s2, p3, t1]
> t4 [s2, p4, o3]
>
> But what if we allow a statement identifier to stand like a resource
> identifier as the subject of a node? For instance the following:
>
> t5 [t1, p5, o4]
> t6 [t1, p6, o5]
>
> Now if our attention is on t3 and we advance to its object where do we end
> up? It's ambiguous. We could either be on the node consisting of {t5, t6}
> or we could be on the statement itself {t1} in the node consisting of {t1,
> t2}. I hope we don't allow this ambiguity.
That's no ambiguity. This is the resource t1:
[t1, type, Statement]
[t1, subject, s1]
[t1, predicate, p1]
[t1, object, o1]
[t1, p5, o4]
[t1, p6, o5]
As you can se, I don't want to get rid of the reification of the
statement. I think it's important to be able to say things about the
statement / stating.
--
/ Jonas Liljegren
The Wraf project http://www.uxn.nu/wraf/
Sponsored by http://www.rit.se/
Received on Thursday, 23 November 2000 15:09:40 UTC