- 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