- 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>
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 UTC