W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: doing provenance in RDF 1.0 clarified

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:32:52 -0500
Message-ID: <3C6AE994.7030305@mitre.org>
To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
CC: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Sergey Melnik wrote:

> 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).

How about adding a straw poll on the last sentence to the reification subagenda? 


Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 17:28:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:10 UTC