- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:32:52 -0500
- To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- CC: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Sergey Melnik wrote: > 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). How about adding a straw poll on the last sentence to the reification subagenda? --Frank -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 17:28:08 UTC