Re: doing provenance in RDF 1.0 clarified

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.

Sergey

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