- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:11:35 +0100
- To: "Graham Klyne <gk" <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Assuming (-- taken from Tarski) == Whenever, in a sentence, we wish to say something about a certain thing, we have to use, in this sentence, not the thing itself but its *name* or *designation*. (this is also the case when the thing talked about happens to be a word or a symbol) Every expression should differ (at least in writing) from its *name*. Forming the *name* of an expression can be done by placing it between quotation marks. The same thing can have many different *names*. == and assuming N3's { and } as quotation marks then we at least have one of the different means for naming graphs. I understand your example ID => { < a, b, c > < a1, b1, c1 > < a2, b2, c2 > } ID => { < a3, b3, c3 > } as giving 1 name to 2 *different* things which I guess was not the intention and which is bad of course. I've never felt the need for more than {triples} names; those names are written on documents which have URI's and those URI's are the pivotal points. -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org> To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>, Sent by: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org> www-rdf-interest-req cc: uest@w3.org Subject: RE: Trust, Context, Justification and Quintuples 19/12/2003 18:56 At 13:31 19/12/03 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >I suggest that instead of a quadruples or quintuples approach that this >difference in semantics is better reflected by naming graphs (sets of >triples). FWIW, this is just what I do in my current software. But I note that it is, in information terms, pretty much equivalent to using quads, where the 4th item is a context id. quads->labelled graphs: collect statements by context id use context id as graph label put statements, without context id, into appropriately labelled graph labelled graphs->quads: for each statement of each labelled graph: construct a quad that is the statement PLUS the graph identifier as its context id It's informally stated, but I think that's a bijection. But, then you say: >whose to say that there is not another quad somewhere I think you have a point here, but I'd also ask: Who's to say that one of your named graphs doesn't have another triple somewhere? Or, to put it another way, what do you do with: ID => { < a, b, c > < a1, b1, c1 > < a2, b2, c2 > } ID => { < a3, b3, c3 > } ? #g -- BTW, Chris, in my original response to you, I didn't advocate using reification (though I did once argue its use as a way to abstractly represent quads in "pure" RDF). ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Saturday, 20 December 2003 08:12:00 UTC