- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:23:48 +0000
- To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 18:12 12/02/2002 -0500, Frank Manola wrote: [...] >What do you see the practical implementations of this entailment >being? Given the view of > ><ex:subj> <ex:prop> <ex:obj> > >as a "stating" (inscription, statement occurrence, aka "triple"), I don't >see how we can logically (?) deny that the presense of this triple entails >that "there exists a statement with [such and such characteristics]". I agree. > Haven't we just said it? Does the problem have to do with what we say > instances of <rdf:Statement> are (statements or triples)? I.e., we can't > say "there exists a statement..." because it isn't one, it's a triple? Nah, its just that if I've got an "inferencing model", our term for an implementation of a graph that implements the closure rule, I'll have all these entailed reifications which are just so much junk getting in the way. >A more practical issue, it seems to me, is that even if all the statements >in your graph entail their reifications, what's the point? Yes. Much better put; I think that's what was really on my mind. Brian
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 10:25:20 UTC