- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:22:49 +0200
- To: ext Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-02-12 20:49, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: > Following up on Frank's excellent reification process, and the decision we > made last week support the provenance use case, I'm wondering if we can > move forward on reification. I wonder if at this weeks telecon we can > decide that the answer to the question: > > Does > > <stmt1> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> . > <stmt1> <rdf:subject> <subject> . > <stmt1> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> . > <stmt1> <rdf:object> <object> . > > <stmt2> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> . > <stmt2> <rdf:subject> <subject> . > <stmt2> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> . > <stmt2> <rdf:object> <object> . > > <stmt1> <property> <foo> . > > entail: > > <stmt2> <property> <foo> . > > is NO. Right. > Regarding Graham's entailment: > > <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> . > > Whilst I see the sense behind it, I'm a bit concerned by the practical > implications of all the statements in my graph entailing their > reifications. So from a standpoint of simplicity and pragmatics, I propose > that there are NO other entailments in the model theory to do with > reification. If you mean, an assertion/triple does not entail its "trivial" reification, then yes, I agree. 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 Wednesday, 13 February 2002 07:21:27 UTC