- From: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>
- Date: 28 Nov 2000 13:10:09 +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: > 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] > > > > 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. The t1 is the same. If you say [context1, asserts, t1], that would be an assetrion of the stating t1. If that's not what you itended, can you explain where you "want to be"? -- / Jonas Liljegren The Wraf project http://www.uxn.nu/wraf/ Sponsored by http://www.rit.se/
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2000 07:07:20 UTC