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

Re: doing provenance in RDF 1.0 clarified

From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:33:10 -0800
Message-ID: <3C6AE9A6.577DA963@db.stanford.edu>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Brian McBride wrote:
> At 16:14 10/02/2002 +0100, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
> [...]
> >and Statement is according to a "yes" on DanBri's entailment test case
> A simple way to interpret the vote at Friday's telecon is that we decide
> that an rdf:Statement represents a stating (an occurence of a
> statement).  Would that then imply that the entailment does not follow;
> i.e. that two resources with the same values for their subject, predicate
> and object properties may denote different statings.

I think this decision effectively makes rdf:subject etc. vocabulary
useless, i.e. not having any special meaning (I believe Pat made this
point earlier). In other words, 4-triple reification becomes effectively
deprecated (which is fine with me).

Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 17:16:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:55 UTC