W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > May 2004

Re: [OEP] Draft of a note on n-ary relations

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 14:21:01 +0100
Message-ID: <409B8D3D.9020305@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>, swbp <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>

Do you have any other ideas, Dan?
Those of us who would prefer a different term, need to propose one if we 
want to be able to persuade others.


Dan Brickley wrote:

> Guus Schreiber wrote:
>> Reification is the proper term. For example, it is also used in UML 
>> books to describe association classes.
>> I would suggest to put in a NOTE in the text to indicate that the term 
>> is used in the general sense and does ot refer to RDF reification.
> Reification would be the proper term normally. It is unfortunate that 
> the RDF spec uses up such a useful word, and particularly unfortunate 
> that RDF reification isn't a particularly useful representational 
> mechanism. I would advise against using the word 'reification' (even 
> with a NOTE) to describe "non-RDF" reification in an RDF context. Even 
> writing that last sentence tied me in knots, since non-RDF-reification 
> (eg. the n-ary conventions) is of course something we do in RDF. The 
> word is gone, taken from us... to use it is to encourage its continued 
> use, and not everyone will be as careful as us to include a disclaimer 
> NOTE. I guess I'm not arguing that we must completely avoid its use (eg. 
> in footnotes, parentheses, discussion of relation to UML etc.), just to 
> minimise references to 'reification' wherever possible.
> Dan
Received on Friday, 7 May 2004 09:22:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:38 UTC