- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 18:18:03 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On Wed, 2002-02-13 at 16:18, Frank Manola wrote: >[...] >> 1. Brian suggests that we (explicitly) decide on answering 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> . >> >> [Brian suggests that the answer is NO] > >I really wrestle with this. The M&S spec is quite clear that >the answer is YES, as PeterPS has pointed out in >his message to www-rdf-logic of 04 Feb 2002 13:24:08 -0500. OK, and I think he is right. But on the other hand the M&S is often confused on use/mention issues, and this could plausibly be seen as one of those, so maybe that aspect of the M&S can be taken with a pinch of salt. >We don't think that anybody is relying >on that part of the M&S spec, but I'm pretty uncomfortable >pulling the rug out from under somebody who *does* rely >on it, but hasn't followed our recent work. OK again, but I really don't think that this will pull the rug out. At worst it might shake it a little. If someone wants a reification to mean the proposition or the 'abstract' triple, and we say it means a concrete token of the triple, then all they have to do is to re-interpret their properties to mean 'bears the <whatever> relation to the *triple/proposition encoded by the inscription*....', where the *..* words have to be inserted. This is very similar to what we are doing to people who want to write <mary> <age> "10" where by insisting that literals ARE strings, we aren't actually saying that they can't write triples like that; only that when they do, they have to think of <age> as meaning, '...age is the *number indicated by the numeral*...' rather than '..age is ...'. What the 'more particular' interpretation does, in both cases, is to force a reification to be more particular: to have more information in it, in a sense. You are always free to ignore that extra information, however, and use the particular to stand in for the more general. But the reverse doesn't work; if we go for the more abstract notion, anyone who wants to use it for eg provenance, is screwed. >We can make up a new design, but I think >we should use new URIs for the terms in this new design. > >I don't want to delay a decision... but in good conscience, >I may have to vote against this to be sure The Director >takes a look at it. Well, by all means, but please make sure that the case is made out to him by a good lawyer. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 18:18:07 UTC