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

Re: reification "subagenda"

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:52:19 -0500
Message-ID: <3C6D20A3.1AD22D64@mitre.org>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
I must be missing something here.  Whenever I see a constraint like this
proposed, I want to know "how do you propose to prevent it"?  So in this
case, how are you going to prevent there being multiple reifications of
the same statement?  Look for multiple "patterns" of quads (the
individual triples of which by hypothesis have different subjects) that
refer to the same subject, predicate, and object?  Why would anyone
imagine doing such a thing?  Within what groupings of statements would
you try to enforce this constraint?

--Frank

Graham Klyne wrote:
> 
> At 10:59 PM 2/14/02 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
> >On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 11:21, Graham Klyne wrote:
> > > 1. I agree that M&S allows only one statement with given sub, pred, obj.
> > >
> > > 2. M&S may not specifically admit more than one reification of a
> > statement,
> > > but it also does not (to me) clearly deny the possibility.
> >
> >Hmm... that's an angle I hadn't considered.
> >
> >But how do you reconcile point 2. with text like
> >   A statement and its corresponding reified statement
> >? That's pretty clear that they're in 1-1 correspondence,
> >no?
> 
> We could bat words about, but in a specification I don't think anything
> less than an explicit statement ala "any statement has at most one
> reification" would qualify as "clear", so I don't buy the argument "do X
> because M&S clearly says so".
> 
> >I'm still trying to decide whether I care enough to
> >go on record as opposing this decision.
> >I think the argument we made for removing
> >aboutEachPrefix applies pretty well to reification.
> 
> I don't plan to lose sleep over this one either, but I think a couple of
> points have been offered:
> 
> DanBri:  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0270.html
> 
> Me:  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0396.html
> 
> Bottom line:  defining the vocabulary and being clear that there are NO
> special entailments may be a useful option.  Also "mostly harmless", even
> if it turns out not to be useful.  Since the vocabulary exists and has been
> defined it seems appropriate to make this kind of clarification rather than
> deprecating it.
> 
> #g
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
> Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>

-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Friday, 15 February 2002 11:26:45 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:13 EDT