- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 21:41:30 +0000
- To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 11:04 AM 2/14/02 -0800, Sergey Melnik wrote: >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)... Strictly, in terms of the formal semantics, I think this is true. But because the formal semantics is mostly (deliberately) non-committal about interpretations of vocabulary, I think it is still possible for there to be some value here documenting some interpretation of the reification vocabulary that may reasonably be commonly held, even if it doesn't provide any specific entailments at this time. DanBri suggested an interesting position that additional properties could be associated with the reification quad rdf:Statement resource. I can imagine that the common reification vocabulary might be the "Rosetta Stone" for combining the results of various experiments that will probably be conducted in this area, as we try to find useful ways to reason about provenance, modalities and related ideas. #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 17:05:17 UTC