Re: reification "subagenda"

At 16:18 13/02/2002 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
>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.

As has already been noted, there are folks who are considering defining new 
reification vocabulary so that statements can be described in terms of the 
URI's of their components, rather than the components themselves.

As I see it, the WG has a choice:

   o modify the formal definintion of the existing vocabulary so that
     it better meets the needs of modelling provenance

   o leave the original reification as specified in M&S and recommend that
     others develop a new vocabulary to support provenance

Deciding that the entailment above does not hold is deciding to modify
the formal definition.

Brian