- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:50:13 -0800
- To: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>
- CC: ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
Jonas Liljegren wrote: > 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] Ok, but I would like to compare our two different ways of solving context and reification. I have provided the quads for my way below. Suppose we have a statement: [id1, Bush, wonThe, Election] Placing that in ~two~ ~different~ contexts? [id2, context1, asserts, id1] [id3, context2, asserts, id1] Talking about it - reification: [id4, s1, reifies, id1] [id5, s1, whateverP, whateverO] Putting information about reified statements in 2 different contexts: [id6, context3, asserts, s1] [id7, context4, asserts, s1] Talking about an assertion of the context of another statement: [id8, s2, reifies, id3] [id9, s2, whateverP, whateverO] So how would you do all that with your technique? I think my technique scales to different orders of reference very nicely :)) Seth Russell
Received on Monday, 27 November 2000 18:47:36 UTC