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

Re: reification "subagenda"

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:45:25 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101450b89330a20832@[]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 11:21, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>  1. I agree that M&S allows only one statement with given sub, pred, obj.
>>  2. M&S may not specifically admit more than one reification of a statement,
>>  but it also does not (to me) clearly deny the possibility.
>Hmm... that's an angle I hadn't considered.
>But how do you reconcile point 2. with text like
>   A statement and its corresponding reified statement
>? That's pretty clear that they're in 1-1 correspondence,

Well, 'corresponding' doesnt have any real teeth, so its not clear 
what it means.

>I'm still trying to decide whether I care enough to
>go on record as opposing this decision.
>I think the argument we made for removing
>aboutEachPrefix applies pretty well to reification.

I think the point is that the way we are going, there is no real need 
to officially 'remove' it. In effect we are marginalizing it, so that 
it is permissible but kind of harmless and almost content-free as far 
as entailments are concerned. That allows people who want to use it 
to go on doing so without feeling that they are being dirty, and it 
doesnt really hurt anyone else as its no real burden on developers. 
So it seems like a win-win.


PS, whaddaya think of the idea of allowing a source as a property of 
a reification? Are there any obvious black holes in it?


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Friday, 15 February 2002 16:45:23 UTC

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