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

Re: summary of reification?

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 18:09:59 -0600
Message-Id: <p0510144db8877586423e@[65.212.118.208]>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
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.

OK. But let me ask: suppose there were two groups, and one said it 
was a statement and the other said it was a stating. Are there any 
entailment tests (or some other kind of behavioral test??) where they 
would disagree about what the right answer was?

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 19:09:20 EST

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