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

Re: reification test case

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 04 Feb 2002 11:02:31 -0600
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, Brian McBride <brian_mcbride@hp.com>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1012842152.4003.22.camel@dirk>
On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 10:37, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> On 2002-02-04 17:23, "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 07:12, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> >> My vote: no.
> > 
> > I vote yes.
> > 
> > This is what "triple" means, after all, no?
> > if x=xx, y=yy, z=zz, then (x,y,z)=(xx,yy,zz), no?
> 
> But a bNode of type rdf:Statement

???

I can't make sense of that. Do you mean
"a bNode which denotes, via an extended interpretation,
something of type rdf:Statement"?

> is not a triple,

The spec says it is. How do you come to the conclusion
that it is not?

> it
> is the reification of a triple to which can be added
> additional knowledge such as authority, source, scope,
> etc.

"added"? That suggests Statements have state; i.e.
they can be changed. The spec says they're triples.
Triples don't have state, the way I understand them.

> Whether two reification bNodes

"reification bNode"? I don't know how to make sense of that.

> describe the same triple
> does not necessarily mean that other properties ascribed
> to each of those bNodes individually apply to all bNodes
> reifying the same triple.

I'm not sure how to make sense of that; but it seems
we disagree.

> > 
> > | There is a set called Statements, each element of which is a
> > | triple of the form
> > |
> > | {pred, sub, obj}
> > -- http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#model
> > 
> > If we're not going to take the implications of reification
> > seriously, let's just throw it out.
> 
> I think that the point of this discussion is to take it
> seriously -- by trying to come to a consensus about what
> it is and how it works (or should work) in RDF.
> 
> Just because others may view it differently does not mean
> they are not taking it as seriously.

I apologize for editorializing.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 12:03:33 EST

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