Re: reification "subagenda"

Brian McBride wrote:

> At 17:18 13/02/2002 -0500, 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]
> 
> 
> Picky, but Brian meant to suggest that there is strong support in the WG 
> for an answer of NO.


I sit corrected.


> 
> 
>> 2.  In another message, Brian said:  "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)."  I think this is 
>> something we should explicitly decide as well (in a manner consistent 
>> with our decision on #1).
>>
>> NB:  If the decision that rdf:Statement represents a stating were 
>> made, DanBri has said:
>>
>>> Such a clarification of rdf:Statement would set things up so that others
>>> (eg. via a Note, via later work of this WG or another, whatever) could
>>> provide further properties that better describe the characteristics 
>>> of an
>>> rdf:Statement. For example, DanC and I might define util:predicateURI,
>>> util:subjectURI, util:ObjectURI, each having rdfs:domain of 
>>> rdf:Statement,
>>> to address the concerns aired in the use/mention/superman thread. By
>>> agreeing that rdf:Statement's members aren't individuated by p/s/o, we'd
>>> lay the groundwork for future improvements to reification.
>>
>>
>> 3.  Brian also suggests that we decide on Graham's entailment:  Does
>>
>> <ex:subj> <ex:prop> <ex:obj> .
>>
>> entail
>>
>>      _:r <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> .
>>      _:r <rdf:subject> <ex:subj> .
>>      _:r <rdf:predicate> <ex:prop> .
>>      _:r <rdf:object> <ex:obj> .
>>
>> [Brian suggests (I think) that the answer is NO.]
> 
> 
> Yes, I did suggest that.  I hope no one feels Brian is being too 
> suggestive (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).


I doubt it!


> 
> 
>> 4.  If decisions are made about #1-#3, one of the issues we then need 
>> to decide is whether we need (or can) do anything else to support 
>> provenance in RDF 1.0.  It seems to me that fully dealing with 
>> provenance may require addressing the following:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a full agenda this week.  I'd like to suggest if we get the 
> stuff upto this point done, we'll have done good.  For the rest maybe we 
> could look for volunteers to investigate and report at the f2f.


I agree.  I didn't mean to suggest we try to resolve this further stuff 
at the teleconference.  We're in deep enough waters as it is.


--Frank




-- 
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 Thursday, 14 February 2002 10:16:55 UTC