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

Re: reification "subagenda"

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 13 Feb 2002 16:18:22 -0600
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1013638702.18788.27.camel@dirk>
On Wed, 2002-02-13 at 16:18, Frank Manola wrote:
[...]
> 1.  Brian suggests that we (explicitly) decide on answering 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> .
> 
> [Brian suggests that the answer is NO]

I really wrestle with this. The M&S spec is quite clear that
the answer is YES, as PeterPS has pointed out in
his message to www-rdf-logic of 04 Feb 2002 13:24:08 -0500.

We don't think that anybody is relying
on that part of the M&S spec, but I'm pretty uncomfortable
pulling the rug out from under somebody who *does* rely
on it, but hasn't followed our recent work.

We can make up a new design, but I think
we should use new URIs for the terms in this new design.

I don't want to delay a decision... but in good conscience,
I may have to vote against this to be sure The Director
takes a look at it.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 17:17:58 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:10 EDT