- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 11:28:23 +0200
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-02-05 3:09, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote: >> On 2002-02-04 18:50, "ext Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, 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 is not a triple, it >>>> is the reification of a triple to which can be added >>>> additional knowledge such as authority, source, scope, >>>> etc. >>> >>> shall we say it is a 'description of' a triple? (avoiding the >>> term 'reification' wherever possible strikes me as a useful strategy, >>> at least while we're discussing rdf:Statement...) >>> >>> compare this to a 'description of' a Book, or a person, or any other type >>> of thing whose instances might be described using bNodes in an RDF graph. >>> In each such case the properties we attach to the bNode correspond to >>> properties of the specific individual thing (some book, some person, some >>> triple...) described. >> >> OK. I see your point. >> >>>> Whether two reification bNodes 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. >>> >>> Trying this again swapping 'triple' for 'person': >>> >>> whether two [reification] bNodes describe the same Person >>> does not necessarily mean that other propeties ascribed >>> to each of those bNodes individually apply to all bNodes >>> [reifying/describing] the same person. >>> >>> I'm not sure this works. >> >> Right. I agree that both bNodes refer to the same triple, > > Hey, don't give in so easily. The results of math intimidation... ;-) OK, sticking to my non-math based but experience derived intiutions, I retain my view that the proposed entailments are not correct. ;-) > Some properties must be shared, since those follow from the ones we > know are the same. They have the same truthvalue, in particular, so > they entail the same things; and they take up the same amount of > storage space. But that's about all. Yeah, uh, um, right... what Pat said.... (nice to see a clear rephrasing of what I was thinking ;-) Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2002 04:27:29 UTC