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

Re: reification test case

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 16:52:01 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020204164021.03026140@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Cc: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 16:24 04/02/2002 +0100, Jos De_Roo wrote:

[...]


>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

Spot on Jos.  That is the decision I'm suggesting the WG make.

Early votes were for making this non-functional.  DanC has pointed out that 
his interpretation of M&S (which concurs with mine) is that it is functional.

The formal section of M&S defines rdf:Statement to apply to the triple as 
Dan pointed out.  However, the examples of reification suggest its use for 
provenance, for which stating is more useful.

I suggest that we don't make a big mountain out of this.  There are two 
concepts, (subject, predicate, object) and stating.  We have one URI, 
rdf:Statement.  We pick one concept for rdf:Statement to apply to, and the 
other will be defined in some other vocabulary(s).  Does it really matter a 
whole lot which is which?

Take your pick.

Brian
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 11:53:08 EST

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