W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2001

Re: Abstract syntax: an attempt

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:00:31 -0400 (EDT)
To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0106172355380.8934-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, Sergey Melnik wrote:

> Brian,
>
> I'd just like to reiterate some of the arguments for making reification
> a built-in feature (possibly as an optional layer):
>
> - in M&S, reified statements need to have a URI. It looks like they
> should be unique, but nobody wants to deal with uniqueness, but still
> some sort of URIs need to be assigned, so we end up having to deal with
> different URIs denoting the same statement etc.

I don't understand "need to have a URI" here. RDF M&S allows us to
describe lots of things that don't have URIs (though they may in-principle
be namable with URIs...). Can you explain the sense in which reified
statements "need" to have a URI? Or "have" for that matter: do you mean
that we can't represent reified statements without assigning a URI to
them?

Dan
Received on Monday, 18 June 2001 00:01:37 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:11 EDT