- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 04 Feb 2002 11:02:31 -0600
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, Brian McBride <brian_mcbride@hp.com>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 10:37, Patrick Stickler wrote: > On 2002-02-04 17:23, "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 07:12, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > >> My vote: no. > > > > I vote yes. > > > > This is what "triple" means, after all, no? > > if x=xx, y=yy, z=zz, then (x,y,z)=(xx,yy,zz), no? > > But a bNode of type rdf:Statement ??? I can't make sense of that. Do you mean "a bNode which denotes, via an extended interpretation, something of type rdf:Statement"? > is not a triple, The spec says it is. How do you come to the conclusion that it is not? > it > is the reification of a triple to which can be added > additional knowledge such as authority, source, scope, > etc. "added"? That suggests Statements have state; i.e. they can be changed. The spec says they're triples. Triples don't have state, the way I understand them. > Whether two reification bNodes "reification bNode"? I don't know how to make sense of that. > describe the same triple > does not necessarily mean that other properties ascribed > to each of those bNodes individually apply to all bNodes > reifying the same triple. I'm not sure how to make sense of that; but it seems we disagree. > > > > | There is a set called Statements, each element of which is a > > | triple of the form > > | > > | {pred, sub, obj} > > -- http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#model > > > > If we're not going to take the implications of reification > > seriously, let's just throw it out. > > I think that the point of this discussion is to take it > seriously -- by trying to come to a consensus about what > it is and how it works (or should work) in RDF. > > Just because others may view it differently does not mean > they are not taking it as seriously. I apologize for editorializing. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 12:03:33 UTC