Re: Predicates and Arcs vs Triples RE: use/mention and reification: rdf:predicate/subject/object

At 01:52 PM 5/27/01 -0400, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>This argument is oft stated. And in the early days of software, similar
>arguments were made regading the lack of ability of a high level language to
>express anything beyond what is expressed in machine language.

That is very different from the argument I am advancing.  I am saying that 
triples are something in which the various "high level languages" of 
resource description might be grounded, and (assuming adequate semantics) 
through which the various forms of "high language may" be related.

[...]
> >
> > I think their is a fair community investment in the triple form, and that
> > it should not be discarded unless we are certain that it is fundamentally
> > inadequate.
>
>I submit that the community investment is in _arcs and nodes_ not triples
>per se.

I view "arcs and nodes" (as in directed labelled graphs) and "triples" as 
different presentations of what is fundamentally the same syntax.

[...]
>You: contexts e.g. (p,s,o, context)

Actually, not:  what I proposed (as a working format grounded in (p,s,o)) 
was <p,s,o,id> where 'id' was an identifier for the statement, not a context.

[...]
>What we are calling "triples" are often not triples (of course they can be
>decomposed into triples).

I have always been clear in my own mind of a distinction between the 
unadorned labelled directed graph form (triples) and any other format that 
might prove more convenient to work with.

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)

Received on Monday, 28 May 2001 04:19:46 UTC