- 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>
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. [nods] 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. Dan -- mailto:danbri@w3.org http://www.w3.org/People/DanBri/
Received on Sunday, 10 February 2002 13:00:39 UTC