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

Re: reification "subagenda"

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:53:23 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 17:18 13/02/2002 -0500, 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]

Picky, but Brian meant to suggest that there is strong support in the WG 
for an answer of NO.

>2.  In another message, Brian said:  "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)."  I think this is something we 
>should explicitly decide as well (in a manner consistent with our decision 
>on #1).
>NB:  If the decision that rdf:Statement represents a stating were made, 
>DanBri has said:
>>Such a clarification of rdf:Statement would set things up so that others
>>(eg. via a Note, via later work of this WG or another, whatever) could
>>provide further properties that better describe the characteristics of an
>>rdf:Statement. For example, DanC and I might define util:predicateURI,
>>util:subjectURI, util:ObjectURI, each having rdfs:domain of rdf:Statement,
>>to address the concerns aired in the use/mention/superman thread. By
>>agreeing that rdf:Statement's members aren't individuated by p/s/o, we'd
>>lay the groundwork for future improvements to reification.
>3.  Brian also suggests that we decide on Graham's entailment:  Does
><ex:subj> <ex:prop> <ex:obj> .
>      _:r <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> .
>      _:r <rdf:subject> <ex:subj> .
>      _:r <rdf:predicate> <ex:prop> .
>      _:r <rdf:object> <ex:obj> .
>[Brian suggests (I think) that the answer is NO.]

Yes, I did suggest that.  I hope no one feels Brian is being too suggestive 
(nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

>4.  If decisions are made about #1-#3, one of the issues we then need to 
>decide is whether we need (or can) do anything else to support provenance 
>in RDF 1.0.  It seems to me that fully dealing with provenance may require 
>addressing the following:

We have a full agenda this week.  I'd like to suggest if we get the stuff 
upto this point done, we'll have done good.  For the rest maybe we could 
look for volunteers to investigate and report at the f2f.

Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 09:55:10 UTC

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