- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:43:21 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 16:18 13/02/2002 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
>On Wed, 2002-02-13 at 16:18, Frank Manola wrote:
>[...]
> > 1. Brian suggests that we (explicitly) decide on answering 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> .
> >
> > [Brian suggests that the answer is NO]
>
>I really wrestle with this. The M&S spec is quite clear that
>the answer is YES, as PeterPS has pointed out in
>his message to www-rdf-logic of 04 Feb 2002 13:24:08 -0500.
As has already been noted, there are folks who are considering defining new
reification vocabulary so that statements can be described in terms of the
URI's of their components, rather than the components themselves.
As I see it, the WG has a choice:
o modify the formal definintion of the existing vocabulary so that
it better meets the needs of modelling provenance
o leave the original reification as specified in M&S and recommend that
others develop a new vocabulary to support provenance
Deciding that the entailment above does not hold is deciding to modify
the formal definition.
Brian
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 08:44:43 UTC