W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: doing provenance in RDF 1.0 clarified

From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:04:43 -0800
Message-ID: <3C6C0A4B.C19840ED@db.stanford.edu>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Brian McBride wrote:
> At 17:32 13/02/2002 -0500, Frank Manola wrote:
> [...]
> >>I think this decision effectively makes rdf:subject etc. vocabulary
> >>useless, i.e. not having any special meaning (I believe Pat made this
> >>point earlier). In other words, 4-triple reification becomes effectively
> >>deprecated (which is fine with me).
> I disagree.  It works just fine, in either Statement or Stating
> interpretation for my use of it in the P3P schema.

If none of the entailments holds, no special semantics is associated
with rdf:subject et al vocabulary. In other words, using rdf:subject
instead of ex:foo would not convey additional information (in P3P schema
or anywhere else)...

> >How about adding a straw poll on the last sentence to the reification
> >subagenda?
> We already decided not to shoot it.  Please move forwards, not backwards.

I'm subscribing under Frank's reply here.

Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 13:47:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:10 UTC