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

RE: summary of reification?

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:32:48 -0000
To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: "Sergey Melnik" <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDEEAGCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>


Brian

may I suggest a process for the reification discussion.

We now have some idea of the entailments we are discussing.

I think it is important that we do not vote on these inidividually, and
potentially end up with a self-contradictory set of statements (logic is not
democratic).

I think we should instead try to group sets of answer to the entailments in
two (or maybe three) consistent positions and then have a straight vote to
decide between them.

e.g.

A Stating reading, for the use-case of provenance, having the following
entailments hold:
???
and having the following entailments not hold:
???


OR

A Statement reading, for maximum consistency with para 162 and 163 of M&S,
having the following entailments hold:
???
and having the following entailments not hold:
???


OR

[...]



My own position is having no entailments hold, which I currently think of as
the Stating position.

In summary, I think we should have a statings versus statements show-down,
using the entailments to help clarify what each position means.



Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2002 08:33:25 EST

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