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@[]>
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?


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 19:09:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:55 UTC