- From: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>
- Date: 28 Nov 2000 13:37:19 +0100
- To: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Cc: ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net> writes: > I think my technique scales to different orders of reference very nicely :)) I'm worrid about that it doesn't seem to be the standard prefered way, as I understand it. Let me try to give you the alternative: > Suppose we have a statement: > > [id1, Bush, wonThe, Election] [a1, Bush, wonThe, Election] > Placing that in ~two~ ~different~ contexts? > > [id2, context1, asserts, id1] > [id3, context2, asserts, id1] [a2, context1, type, Selection] [a3, context1, _1, a1] [a4, context2, type, Selection] [a5, context2, _1, a1] > Talking about it - reification: > > [id4, s1, reifies, id1] > [id5, s1, whateverP, whateverO] [a6, a1, whateverP, whateverO] > Putting information about reified statements in 2 different contexts: > > [id6, context3, asserts, s1] > [id7, context4, asserts, s1] Same as contex1 and context2 > Talking about an assertion of the context of another statement: > > [id8, s2, reifies, id3] > [id9, s2, whateverP, whateverO] [a7, context2, whateverP, whateverO] -- / Jonas Liljegren The Wraf project http://www.uxn.nu/wraf/ Sponsored by http://www.rit.se/
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2000 07:34:15 UTC