Re: Why? Re: rdf as a base for other languages

From: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>
Subject: Re: Why? Re: rdf as a base for other languages
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 10:24:30 -0700

> From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
> 
> > What I do wish to assert is the <if> expression. The problem with RDF as
> it
> > is currently defined (statement == triple == fact) is that I cannot assert
> > an expression created of multiple statements (i.e. a subgraph) apparently
> > without asserting each of the subgraphs within the subgraph.
> >
> > What I do wish is to be able to 'draw a line' around a subgraph (or
> > expression take your pick) and assert _that_.
> 
> But that is exactly what we can do with context.  Context is just a
> collection of statements from the entire graph available to any agent at any
> particular time.  This kind of Context does imply that we have some
> capability of allowing an arc to be the object of another arc .. which I
> take we can do with reification .. see [1].   And for an example of using
> this for disjoint contexts see [2] and [3].

I'm sorry but I do not see the ability to define and use contexts in RDF at
all, nor do I see the ability to have an arc (triple) to be the object of
another arc, even with reification.  Remember the only thing that RDF says
about reified statements (i.e., resources with rdf:type rdf:statement) is
that they have exactly one rdf:subject, one rdf:object, and one
rdf:predicate.  

peter

Received on Saturday, 2 June 2001 15:36:53 UTC