- From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 10:39:40 +0100
- To: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <pachampi@caramail.com>
- Cc: "RDF Interest (E-mail)" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 04:46 AM 9/20/00 -0400, Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote: > > 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 :) I was wondering about that. I don't mind which way it goes, as long as it makes a consistent story. >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. There's also that we are talking here, effectively, about quotings of statements. Are two quotations of the same statement actually the same quotation? I may want to talk about a quotation of a statement made by myself, and a quotation of the same statement made by Brian. Example: (1) A statement: pigs can fly (2) I assert the statement "pigs can fly" (3) Brian assert the statement "pigs can fly" (4) When I said "pigs can fly" I believed I was telling the truth (5) When Brian said "pigs can fly" he was lying. So we have: ["pigs can fly"] (2) is a believed truth. and in another case ["pigs can fly"] (3) is a lie. Are these quotations the same resource? If so, we seem to have a contradiction. (I accept there are other ways of modelling this that avoids the contradiction, but I don't think that invalidates the line taken above.) Lets move this to a more realistic scenario: I create a document containing a statement, and send it out with a statement (signature, whatever) saying that I assure the content of the document. Then I resend the same document with a statement saying that I repudiate its contents. If the quoted statements are distinct that's fine. But if they're the same it can get difficult to untangle what is going on. -- FWIW, I think this is bound up with the issue of URI:resource being 1:1-onto, or 1:N. If the former, and considering that the RDF model clearly allows multiple reifications to be expressed with different identifiers, then they must be different resources. If the latter then there is a choice. #g ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2000 05:41:37 UTC