- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 11:05:42 +0100
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 09:16 AM 6/18/01 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:
> > - in M&S, we need a specific vocabulary to express/use reification.
> > Reification could be defined without relying on vocabularies.
>
>I'm wondering what you mean here by 'relying' on vocabularies. Reification
>is currently defined using rdf:type, rdf:subject etc. Those are
>vocabularies.
I think that it would be more precise to say that reification is _encoded_
using rdf:subject, etc.. The _definition_ of reification still seems to be
an undecided issue.
It also seems that some vocabulary-based semantics depend upon the use of
more than one vocabulary item in concert: an idea that I think is
typically captured by "syntax". (At this point, I refer you to my other
message in this batch.)
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2001 07:16:15 UTC