- From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:33:10 -0800
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
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. I think this decision effectively makes rdf:subject etc. vocabulary useless, i.e. not having any special meaning (I believe Pat made this point earlier). In other words, 4-triple reification becomes effectively deprecated (which is fine with me). Sergey
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 17:16:00 UTC