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

Re: summary of reification?

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 09:33:44 +0100
To: "Pat Hayes <phayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF79643A4D.890C85C4-ONC1256B59.002E3B8C@agfa.be>


>>>Or, better, why not just trash it, since apparently nobody uses it
>>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?

yes, Brian's etc (entailment test case) we discussed this week

we, the 'statement' guys, would say

  ( <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/n3/b1.nt> )
    <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/n3/b2.nt> .

whereas the 'stating' guys would say

  ( <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/n3/b1.nt> )
    <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/n3/b2.nt> .

Received on Thursday, 7 February 2002 03:34:26 UTC

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