W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: reification test case

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:22:16 -0500 (EST)
To: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0202041117150.1941-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Jos De_Roo wrote:

>
>
> > Let me recast this then:
> >
> > We have to decide on Dan Brickley's equality test.  Does
> >
> > >  <stmt1> <rdf:type>      <rdf:Statement> .
> > >  <stmt1> <rdf:subject>   <subject> .
> > >  <stmt1> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> .
> > >  <stmt1> <rdf:object>    <object> .
> > >
> > >  <stmt2> <rdf:type>      <rdf:Statement> .
> > >  <stmt2> <rdf:subject>   <subject> .
> > >  <stmt2> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> .
> > >  <stmt2> <rdf:object>    <object> .
> > >
> > >  <stmt1> <property>      <foo> .
> > >
> > >  entail:
> > >
> > >  <stmt2> <property>      <foo> .
>
> it of course all depends on the theory of RDF reification
> if we want to go the way that a statement is a functional
> property of a triple, then the answer to your question is YES

I understood Brian's question differently! To me, he was asking, in
effect, which version of reification we want, not 'how do we think M+S
reification works'.

So your answer isn't quite an answer, just a rephrasing:

> if we want to go the way that a statement is a functional
> property of a triple, then the answer to your question is YES

Question remains: do we want this?

I think we all agree that the spec currently has wording that supports
both views. BTW, having talked to Ralph, Ora and other members of the
original Working Group, I'm pretty sure there was no clear original
decision on this issue: the problem only came to light after the spec
became a W3C REC.

Dan


-- 
mailto:danbri@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/People/DanBri/
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 11:22:38 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:03 EDT