- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 08:06:56 -0800
- To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Cc: "RDFIG" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
From: "Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org> To: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net> Cc: "RDFIG" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 2:23 PM Subject: Re: Using rdf reification to nest statements in N3 like contexts > At 12:28 PM 3/15/02 -0800, Seth Russell wrote: > >From: "Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org> > > > > > Example: > > > A says { B says {C says D} . B a liar } . > > > If I decide that what A says is true, I may enter the context of > > > what A says and assert: > > > B says {C says D} . B a liar . > > > If we have a syntactic construct for containment, as N3, then the contents > > > of {...} can be treated opaquely as you suggest. But when all this is > > > encoded into a flat space of triples, some other mechanism is needed. I > >am > > > proposing (multiple levels of) encoding as reification-quads. > > > >Well I think that coding a triple as the RDF reification quad makes it > >default to being opaque (not necessarialy true) in every context ... in > >other words a reified statement is simply not asserted in any context. > > Yes. > > > If we want the statement to be true in some context we will need to > > invent a > >property that asserts in that context. > > I was presuming a very general technique: one "enters" a context by > performing one level of "unreification" -- create a new graph with each > rdf:Statement resource in the context generating a statement (triple) > containing the corresponding subject, object and property. Using my > scheme, inner nested contexts still appear as reification quads. The top > level statements of the context entered come out as (non-reified) > statements, hence asserted. Well I don't see how this works in any practical manner because you could only access a particular context via the expression tree in which it was entered. How could you say arbritrary things about arbritray context nodes ? ... anyway did I get the mentograph of your proposal right? The ded arc from C to the inner nested context labeled with the Bnode _:4 would, imho, not show up correctly. http://robustai.net/mentography/context_n3_rdf_liar_comparison1.gif Seth Russell
Received on Saturday, 16 March 2002 11:10:54 UTC