- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:14:48 +0100
- To: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>, "Pat Hayes <phayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "Sergey Melnik <melnik" <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
[...]
>> <ex:subj> <ex:prop> <ex:obj> .
>>entails
>> _:r <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> .
>> _:r <rdf:subject> <ex:subj> .
>> _:r <rdf:predicate> <ex:prop> .
>> _:r <rdf:object> <ex:obj> .
>>?
>>
>>What you say above suggests no such entailment.
>>I think that's fine, but want to be clear.
>
>In a previous life, bc (before core), when thinking of the M&S formal
model
>where it states in:
>
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#162
>
>[[
> (P162) There is a set called Statements, each element of which is a
>triple of the form
>
>(P163) {pred, sub, obj}
>]]
>
>that this said that all statements (not statings, this is the statements
>view) just exist, which is I think, equivalent to anything (and nothing)
>entails:
>
> _:s <rdf:type> <rdf:Statment> .
> _:s <rdf:subject> <subject> .
> _:s <rdf:predicate> <predicate> .
> _:s <rdf:object> <object> .
>
>for any subject, predicate and object.
>
>So I suggest that if we decide that:
>
> <s1> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statment> .
> <s1> <rdf:subject> <subject> .
> <s1> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> .
> <s1> <rdf:object> <object> .
>
> <s2> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statment> .
> <s2> <rdf:subject> <subject> .
> <s2> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> .
> <s2> <rdf:object> <object> .
>
> <s1> <prop> <value> .
>
>entails
>
> <s2> <prop> <value> .
>
>then to be consistent we must also decide that anything (and nothing)
entails:
>
> _:s <rdf:type> <rdf:Statment> .
> _:s <rdf:subject> <subject> .
> _:s <rdf:predicate> <predicate> .
> _:s <rdf:object> <object> .
>
>for any subject, predicate and object.
i agree -- http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfr-theory.n3
--
Jos
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2002 08:15:27 UTC