- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 18:09:59 -0600
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>At 12:25 06/02/2002 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote: > >[...] > >>Or, better, why not just trash it, since apparently nobody uses it anyway. > >We decided at last week's telecon to move forward with clarifying >what it means. We've had some excellent discussion this week, with >the issues becoming clearer - thanks Pat for your excellent >questions earlier. > >To my simple mind it boils down to a choice. Does a reified >statement represent a statement or a stating (an occurrence of a >statement in a graph). > >The formal model part of M&S is clear that its a statement. >However, the intended application was provenance, for which a >stating is required. The original WG were not aware, and did not >consider the difference. We have a simple choice: > > o change the formal definition to suit the intended > application of the original WG > > o stick to the formal model and let someone invent a > new vocabulary for stating. > >Please lets stay out of the rat holes, choose and move on. OK. But let me ask: suppose there were two groups, and one said it was a statement and the other said it was a stating. Are there any entailment tests (or some other kind of behavioral test??) where they would disagree about what the right answer was? Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 19:09:20 UTC