- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:55:42 -0700
- To: "RDF-IG" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "Lee Jonas" <lee.jonas@cakehouse.co.uk>
From: "Lee Jonas" <lee.jonas@cakehouse.co.uk> > Furthermore, statements are always translated into quadruples: the current > (p,s,o) triple plus the uri of the containing context - i.e. (c,p,s,o); There is a competing suggestion to use a statement id in the quadruple instead of context uri, like (id,p,s,o) ... see diagram [1]. The context URI would then identify a context description (external to the triples) which would collect statements in various contexts. The technique is also easily implemented with a relational database. This method has three distinct advantages: 1) It models the real world where the context of a proposition is in the eye of the beholder and not a property of the proposition. 2) It allows for the same proposition (triple) to exist in multiple (even disjoint) contexts - also a situation that holds in the real world. 3) It keeps context in the labeled directed graph data model rather than forcing us to adapt a different mathematical structure in mid stream. I think that all the advantages you ascribe to the (c,p,s,o) technique like reification can also be attributed to the (id,p,s,o) technique see [2], but with the added benefits above. This was suggested by Graham Klyne in his recent paper [3] and is the basis of my work in progress. [1] http://robustai.net/mentography/contexts.gif [2] http://robustai.net/mentography/reification.gif [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Mar/0021.html Seth Russell
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2001 12:59:23 UTC