- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:49:07 +0000
- To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Following up on Frank's excellent reification process, and the decision we
made last week support the provenance use case, I'm wondering if we can
move forward on reification. I wonder if at this weeks telecon we can
decide that the answer to the question:
Does
<stmt1> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> .
<stmt1> <rdf:subject> <subject> .
<stmt1> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> .
<stmt1> <rdf:object> <object> .
<stmt2> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> .
<stmt2> <rdf:subject> <subject> .
<stmt2> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> .
<stmt2> <rdf:object> <object> .
<stmt1> <property> <foo> .
entail:
<stmt2> <property> <foo> .
is NO.
Regarding Graham's entailment:
<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> .
Whilst I see the sense behind it, I'm a bit concerned by the practical
implications of all the statements in my graph entailing their
reifications. So from a standpoint of simplicity and pragmatics, I propose
that there are NO other entailments in the model theory to do with
reification.
Brian
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2002 13:50:17 UTC