- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: 2003年2月12日 10:38:38 -0800
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: www-rdf-comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <3E4A94AE.5050608@robustai.net>
Pat, The WG agreed: "The group overwhelmingly, unanimously supports that we should, in principle, focus on addressing the provenance use-case." [1] You said: "Well, its (literally) impossible to give a coherent interpretation of reification which satisfies everyone. We had to choose one, and we chose the one that seemed to support the existing use cases that people felt strongly about. " [2] So can I assume that the subsequent choices of the WG did in fact support the provenance use-case? Then you say: "In the present set-up, the reified triple is required to mean what it would mean if you de-reified it. It refers to the proposition, not to the surface syntax. "[3] In the light of the above wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the reified node refers to the stating of the proposition, and not the proposition itself ? Now we all know that we cannot substitute in a referentially opaque context [4]. I don't follow the reasoning that gets us from there to your statement: "In a nutshell, :thinks isn't a relationship between an agent and an RDF reification, so it can't be an RDF property. "[5] Could you elaborate that reasoning for me? [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0263.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0237.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0237.html [4] http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/illisubs.html [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0229.html Seth Russell http://robustai.net
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 13:39:18 UTC