- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 12:28:45 -0800
- To: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>
- CC: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>, ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
Jonas Liljegren wrote: > Every part can be a microcosm of itself. The statement as a resource > has it's own properties, as shown in the reification. I'll pass on that one. > 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. That breaks (makes ambiguous) our reference to t1. From my way of thinking there *must* be one and only one dereference of any arc in any particular implementation - otherwise we have utter chaos. So if i say [s2, p3, t1] and dereference the object, I would end up on the node you describe above. And if I say [context1, asserts, t1] and dereference the object, I *must* also end up on the on the node you describe above. But that is certainly not where I want to be. So you have solved the problem of reification but have created a nightmare for the problem of context. I think my solution consistently solves both the context issue and the reification issue. Seth Russell
Received on Thursday, 23 November 2000 15:26:40 UTC