- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 21:07:55 +0000
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 12:57 PM 2/10/02 -0500, Dan Brickley wrote: >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. Me too. >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. That's a very interesting insight. #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Received on Sunday, 10 February 2002 17:31:08 UTC