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

Re: summary of reification?

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 18:56:46 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020206184531.04e1b480@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
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 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:06 EDT