- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 16:52:01 +0000
- To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Cc: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 16:24 04/02/2002 +0100, Jos De_Roo wrote: [...] >it of course all depends on the theory of RDF reification >if we want to go the way that a statement is a functional >property of a triple, then the answer to your question is YES Spot on Jos. That is the decision I'm suggesting the WG make. Early votes were for making this non-functional. DanC has pointed out that his interpretation of M&S (which concurs with mine) is that it is functional. The formal section of M&S defines rdf:Statement to apply to the triple as Dan pointed out. However, the examples of reification suggest its use for provenance, for which stating is more useful. I suggest that we don't make a big mountain out of this. There are two concepts, (subject, predicate, object) and stating. We have one URI, rdf:Statement. We pick one concept for rdf:Statement to apply to, and the other will be defined in some other vocabulary(s). Does it really matter a whole lot which is which? Take your pick. Brian
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 11:53:08 UTC