Michel Pelletier wrote:
>On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 15:28 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:24:30 +0200
>>From: Jean-Marc Orliaguet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject: [Zope3-dev] [DRAFT] local portlets and perspectives
>>It is built on the notion of "Perspective" (see the link) and on the
>>idea of querying the catalog using triadic relations instead of joining
>>sets of query results based on dyadic predicates (such as with RDF).
>I've been looking for more info on Peirce relations since you mentioned
>them to me in Paris, but I haven't found much. This is a good one I've
>found so far:
>"""According to Peirce, ‘meaning’ is a triadic relation between a sign,
>an object, and an interpretant. This triadic relation is not reducible
>to a set of dyadic relations between a sign and an object or between an
>object and an interpretant (CP 1.345). Meaning is never reducible to
>Firstness or Secondness, but can only be a ‘genuine’ Thirdness. A
>general meaning can always be found in ‘genuine’ triadic relations, but
>can never be found in ‘degenerate’ triadic relations which have lost
>Word. But it sounds to me from the description that follows that RDF is
>a triadic relation, but I'm no semiotic phenomenologist. Do you know of
>more references on this subject?
>Another thought, can a Peirce relation be meta-encoded in RDF?
You would need a quadruple store in that case (see the previous mail) -
a triple store is not enough, since in the triple store one place is
already taken by the predicate.
if you have (Subject, Predicate, Object) in RDF
here you have:
- monadic relation: (first, predicate)
- dyadic relation: (first, second, predicate)
- triadic relation: (first, second, third, predicate)
then not necessary all triadic relations are genuine, but at least there
are three elements in them and a unity which a combination of dyadic
relations won't give you.
Zope3-dev mailing list