Can we express propositonal attitudes twards reified statements in RDF ?

Pat,
 
The WG agreed:

     "The group overwhelmingly, unanimously supports that
      we should, in  principle, focus on addressing the
      provenance use-case." [1]

You said:

        "Well, its (literally) impossible to give a coherent interpretation
         of reification which satisfies everyone. We had to choose one,
          and we chose the one that seemed to support the existing use
          cases that people felt strongly about. "  [2]

So can I assume that the subsequent choices of the WG did in fact 
support the provenance use-case?  

Then you say:

      "In the present set-up, the reified triple is required to mean
        what it would mean if you de-reified it. It refers to the 
proposition,
        not to the surface syntax. "[3]

In the light of the above wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the 
reified node refers to the stating of the proposition, and not the 
proposition itself ?

Now we all know that we cannot  substitute in a referentially opaque 
context [4].  

I don't follow the reasoning that gets us from there to your statement:

    "In a nutshell, :thinks isn't a relationship between
      an agent and an RDF reification, so it can't be an RDF property. "[5]

Could you elaborate that reasoning for me?

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0263.html
[2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0237.html
[3] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0237.html
[4] http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/illisubs.html
[5] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0229.html


Seth Russell
http://robustai.net