Re[1] abstract model and reification

> Brian wrote:
> >So if we imagine that we have two resources s1 and s2 
both of which
> >represent some statement S. Then any RDF statement
> >that was true of s1, would in fact be a statement about 
S and so
> >would also be true of s2.

> Graham wrote:
> I'm not sure I buy the premise here...
> Suppose we have s1 and s2, as you say, both modelling 
(representing) S.
> Then we may have different statements about the statement 
S attached to them:
> s1 --assertedBy--> "Brian"
> s2 --assertedBy--> "Graham"

The point is : Brian is seeing Statements as Facts, and 
Graham is seeing them as Fact Occurences. Both have their 
utility, sounds more like a religion issue :)
The problem is that the spec is not very clear about the 
how the authors see it.

We had a discussion about it a few months ago,
sounded like the majority was considering statements as 
facts. I used to talk about "statings" then, when talking 
about fact occurences.

 Pierre-Antoine

______________________________________________________
Boîte aux lettres - Caramail - http://www.caramail.com