Re: doing provenance in RDF 1.0 clarified

On 2002-02-10 19:57, "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com> wrote:

> 
> [...]
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> yes, but then
> the subject of "Mary hit the-ball"
> should be a word starting with "M"
> and *not* my wife
> 
> clarify versus fix?

My take is that the subject would be your wife. The difference
between the statement and the stating is the bNode of type rdf:Statement.
Thus, because bNodes are not tidy, each may uniquely denote a
different stating -- and all statings  having the same S,P, and O
are talking about the same statement, no matter where, when or by
whom it may (or may not) be asserted.

It is that bNode that denotes the stating, and which can take additional
properties to describe the context/attributes of that stating, but all
statings have a node intersection with any actual assertions of the
referenced S, P, and O.

A stating can exist by itself. An assertion triple can exist by itself.
And if they exist together, they share nodes.

That doesn't mean that any properties other than S, P, and O for a
stating modify any other stating, nor that a stating entails the
assertion.

Patrick
 
--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com

Received on Monday, 11 February 2002 06:54:47 UTC