- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 18:56:46 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 12:25 06/02/2002 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
[...]
>Or, better, why not just trash it, since apparently nobody uses it anyway.
We decided at last week's telecon to move forward with clarifying what it
means. We've had some excellent discussion this week, with the issues
becoming clearer - thanks Pat for your excellent questions earlier.
To my simple mind it boils down to a choice. Does a reified statement
represent a statement or a stating (an occurrence of a statement in a graph).
The formal model part of M&S is clear that its a statement.
However, the intended application was provenance, for which a stating is
required. The original WG were not aware, and did not consider the
difference. We have a simple choice:
o change the formal definition to suit the intended
application of the original WG
o stick to the formal model and let someone invent a
new vocabulary for stating.
Please lets stay out of the rat holes, choose and move on.
Brian
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 13:57:55 UTC