Re: Reification: proposed resolution

On 2002-02-12 20:49, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> 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.

Right.

> 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.

If you mean, an assertion/triple does not entail its
"trivial" reification, then yes, I agree.

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com

Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 07:21:27 UTC