- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 07:47:11 -0700
- To: "Lee Jonas" <lee.jonas@cakehouse.co.uk>, "RDF-IG" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
From: "Lee Jonas" <lee.jonas@cakehouse.co.uk> > I like the concept, but does it mean n+1 tuples? e.g.: > (stmtid1,p,s,o) > (stmtid2,references,ctx1,stmtid) Yes, but I don't see that as a problem, do you? > Also, you have to explicitly identify all statement occurrences > consistently, even across documents - this could prove yet another problem > for generating valid rdf. Well actually I am not proposing any changes in RDF\XML or the RDF data model whatsoever - so my proposal would have nothing to do with validating RDF. Rather my proposal addresses the internal data structure of a application ... I guess you could call it the RDF API. > Rather than an 'artificial key' for statements, what if the key were > regarded as (p,s,o)? > then > (c1,p1,s1,o1) > (c2,p1,s1,o1) > represents two contexts referring to the same statement. The consumer of > statements is free to 'import' them into their own contexts if they wish: > (c3,p1,s1,o1). Cool! I hadn't though of that. In this regard our proposals are almost identical. And in my application I actually do form the key p+s+o to insure that a potentially new triple does not already exist before I store it in the database enforcing the idealistic view that triples are unique. However, the extra tangible arc label assigning the triple to a context proves useful for other reasons in my system. With it one can talk about a statement being in a context ... and that statement being in a context ... and so on .. and so on .. and so on. With your system there is no such explicit arc of which we can speak. And also I don't understand how you have solved the reification problem .... [previously you mention] > It seems to me that the goal of reification is to make further statements > about statements - i.e. make statements the subject or object of other > statements. I can see how we can use your technique to make statement(s) the subject or object of other statements. But what about just one statement ? For example I can say (c1,p1,s1,o1) and (c1,p2,s2,o2) and then talk about those with (c2,p3,c1,o3) but what if I just want to talk about the second statement alone .. how would I do that? thanks for the dialogue ... Seth
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2001 10:50:45 UTC