- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 12:57:29 +0000
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 20:08 06/02/2002 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote:
[...]
> <ex:subj> <ex:prop> <ex:obj> .
>entails
> _:r <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> .
> _:r <rdf:subject> <ex:subj> .
> _:r <rdf:predicate> <ex:prop> .
> _:r <rdf:object> <ex:obj> .
>?
>
>What you say above suggests no such entailment.
>I think that's fine, but want to be clear.
In a previous life, bc (before core), when thinking of the M&S formal model
where it states in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#162
[[
(P162) There is a set called Statements, each element of which is a
triple of the form
(P163) {pred, sub, obj}
]]
that this said that all statements (not statings, this is the statements
view) just exist, which is I think, equivalent to anything (and nothing)
entails:
_:s <rdf:type> <rdf:Statment> .
_:s <rdf:subject> <subject> .
_:s <rdf:predicate> <predicate> .
_:s <rdf:object> <object> .
for any subject, predicate and object.
So I suggest that if we decide that:
<s1> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statment> .
<s1> <rdf:subject> <subject> .
<s1> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> .
<s1> <rdf:object> <object> .
<s2> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statment> .
<s2> <rdf:subject> <subject> .
<s2> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> .
<s2> <rdf:object> <object> .
<s1> <prop> <value> .
entails
<s2> <prop> <value> .
then to be consistent we must also decide that anything (and nothing) entails:
_:s <rdf:type> <rdf:Statment> .
_:s <rdf:subject> <subject> .
_:s <rdf:predicate> <predicate> .
_:s <rdf:object> <object> .
for any subject, predicate and object.
Brian
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2002 07:58:41 UTC