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

Re: Reification: proposed resolution

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:23:48 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020214152116.04ab9e00@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 18:12 12/02/2002 -0500, Frank Manola wrote:
[...]

>What do you see the practical implementations of this entailment 
>being?  Given the view of
>
><ex:subj> <ex:prop> <ex:obj>
>
>as a "stating" (inscription, statement occurrence, aka "triple"), I don't 
>see how we can logically (?) deny that the presense of this triple entails 
>that "there exists a statement with [such and such characteristics]".

I agree.

>  Haven't we just said it?  Does the problem have to do with what we say 
> instances of <rdf:Statement> are (statements or triples)?  I.e., we can't 
> say "there exists a statement..." because it isn't one, it's a triple?

Nah, its just that if I've got an "inferencing model", our term for an 
implementation of a graph that implements the closure rule, I'll have all 
these entailed reifications which are just so much junk getting in the way.


>A more practical issue, it seems to me, is that even if all the statements 
>in your graph entail their reifications, what's the point?

Yes.  Much better put; I think that's what was really on my mind.

Brian
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 10:25:20 EST

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