W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: doing provenance in RDF 1.0 clarified

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 12:57:47 -0500 (EST)
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0202101250470.23841-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Brian McBride wrote:

> At 16:14 10/02/2002 +0100, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
> [...]
> >and Statement is according to a "yes" on DanBri's entailment test case
> A simple way to interpret the vote at Friday's telecon is that we decide
> that an rdf:Statement represents a stating (an occurence of a
> statement).  Would that then imply that the entailment does not follow;
> i.e. that two resources with the same values for their subject, predicate
> and object properties may denote different statings.


I would be happy taking this route. Several people (including myself) have
expressed concern that "doing the provenance thing properly" could be a
big job. I think taking the route outlined above, where rdf:Statement had
multiple members with the same p/s/o characteristics, would be
very useful progress towards making RDF's reification vocab work for provenance.

Such a clarification of rdf:Statement would set things up so that others
(eg. via a Note, via later work of this WG or another, whatever) could
provide further properties that better describe the characteristics of an
rdf:Statement. For example, DanC and I might define util:predicateURI,
util:subjectURI, util:ObjectURI, each having rdfs:domain of rdf:Statement,
to address the concerns aired in the use/mention/superman thread. By
agreeing that rdf:Statement's members aren't individuated by p/s/o, we'd
lay the groundwork for future improvements to reification.


Received on Sunday, 10 February 2002 13:00:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:10 UTC