RE: abstract model

On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Graham Klyne wrote:

> Consider, if you have an RDF model (per M&S section 5 formal model) containing:
> 
>    [A] --type------> [Statement]
>    [A] --subject---> [S]
>    [A] --property--> [P]
>    [A] --object----> [O]
> 
>    [B] --type------> [Statement]
>    [B] --subject---> [S]
>    [B] --property--> [P]
>    [B] --object----> [O]
> 
>    [S] --P---------> [O]
> 
> There is no way to know if [A] or [B] is the reification of "[S] --P--> [O]".

This is the problem I have, thus why I proposed the "is a reification
of" relationship over the notion of a direct mapping.

The paper at
http://nestroy.wi-inf.uni-essen.de/rdf/logical_interpretation/index.html
seems to imply this interpretation too; the Reification mapping is not
single-valued.

jan

PS. What are the engineering implications of the Reification mapping
that Brian proposes?
- does a statement's reification have a URI? (or more than one, since a
reification is a resource which may have multiple URIs that symbolise
it)*
- in which case is there a way of determining that URI for any
particular reification?
- given a URI (or just a resource) is there a way of determining which
statement, if any, it reifies?

PPS. I've no problem with Brian's intuition about "Jan made a statement
about Dan, but I'm not exactly sure what" - it's a nice idea, but I
don't think it justifies a "the reification" viewpoint.

* Can of worms stuff apparently.

-- 
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287163 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk
Bolstered by my success with vi, I proceeded to learn C with 'learn c'.