- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:45:48 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>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. > >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. Id be happy with that. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 16:45:52 UTC