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

Re: doing provenance in RDF 1.0 clarified

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:28:28 -0500
Message-ID: <3C6BD79C.5020306@mitre.org>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Brian McBride wrote:

> At 17:32 13/02/2002 -0500, Frank Manola wrote:
> [...]
> 
>>> 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).
>>
> 
> I disagree.  It works just fine, in either Statement or Stating 
> interpretation for my use of it in the P3P schema.
> 
> 
>> How about adding a straw poll on the last sentence to the reification 
>> subagenda?
> 
> 
> We already decided not to shoot it.  Please move forwards, not backwards.


I agree that the *sentiment* was not to shoot it, but I don't believe 
there was an explicit resolution taken about the 4-triple syntax.  I 
view this as "saying explicitly what was decided", not "moving 
backwards."  (NB:  If we *really* want to move backwards, all we need to 
do is keep leaving stuff like this inexplicit, and watch it come up again.)


--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 Thursday, 14 February 2002 10:24:41 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:11 EDT