- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 09:33:44 +0100
- To: "Pat Hayes <phayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
[...] >>>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? yes, Brian's etc (entailment test case) we discussed this week we, the 'statement' guys, would say ( <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/n3/b1.nt> ) log:entails <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/n3/b2.nt> . whereas the 'stating' guys would say ( <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/n3/b1.nt> ) log:notEntails <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/n3/b2.nt> . -- Jos
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2002 03:34:26 UTC