- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:10:21 +0000
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 06:49 PM 2/12/02 +0000, Brian McBride wrote: >Following up on Frank's excellent reification process, and the decision we >made last week support the provenance use case, I'm wondering if we can >move forward on reification. I wonder if at this weeks telecon we can >decide that the answer to 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> . > >is NO. Agreed - does not entail. >Regarding Graham's entailment: > ><ex:subj> <ex:prop> <ex:obj> . > >entails > > _:r <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> . > _:r <rdf:subject> <ex:subj> . > _:r <rdf:predicate> <ex:prop> . > _:r <rdf:object> <ex:obj> . > >Whilst I see the sense behind it, I'm a bit concerned by the practical >implications of all the statements in my graph entailing their >reifications. So from a standpoint of simplicity and pragmatics, I >propose that there are NO other entailments in the model theory to do with >reification. While I may have raised it, I'm happy if the answer is NO, it doesn't entail. I find the simplicity argument persuasive. #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 12:59:26 UTC