Re: Reification: proposed resolution

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