- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 17:43:09 +0200
- To: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: RDF Logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
On 2002-02-05 17:29, "ext Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net> wrote:
> From: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
>
>>> For example:
>>>
>>> foo:bar goo:dar poo:sar.
>>>
>>> [
>>> rdf:type rdf:Statement;
>>> rdf:subject foo:bar;
>>> rdf:predicate goo:gar;
>>> rdf:object: poo:sar;
>>> ex:time "9:15PM"
>>> email::mid 0$657ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com ;
>>> ex:documentLocation :SethsOutbox
>>> ]
>>>
>>> The description above describes the triple as it existed momentarily in
> my
>>> out box. It does not describe the copy of that same triple as it exists
> in
>>> your inbox.
>>
>> Uhhh... now I'm confused as to which "thing" we are talking about.
>> I thought the "thing" was the bNode with rdf:type rdf:Statement.
>> You seem to now be equating "thing" with the triple. Or have I
>> just gotten gonzo confused ;-)
>>
>> If the "thing" is the reification, and if the reification is copied,
>> then of course the copy describes the original statement as accurately
>> and completely as the original reification. Why wouldn't it?
>
> I agree. Since there is both a triple in the document as well as a
> description of that triple in the same document, when the document is
> copied, the description of the triple still refers to the original triple.
> But it does not refer to the triple in the document in your email in box.
> This is a very carefully contrived case :)
Hmmm... I'm gonna sleep on that one and let my subconscious
take a wack at it ;-)
Patrick
--
Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2002 10:49:40 UTC