- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 15:52:02 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote: [...] > Maybe we can convince > the implementors that have implemented it this way that it's > a bug. But it's a widely deployed bug. Perhaps not a lot > of applications depend on this behaviour, and it's > feasible to "fix" the bug; i.e. redeploy the implementations. There was a long thread a while ago on rdf interest arguing that M&S could be interpreted so that reification really represented "statings" not statements. Suggestive that the community might by it. Pat keeps saying that the M&S version of reification is broken. It would be great if he could spell out in bozon terms (i.e. so I can understand) why. It seems to me that I want to say: I believe the sky is blue in which case I'm asserting my attitude towards the abstract sentence -the sky is blue-. I also want to be able to say the sky is green is stated in http://example on 1st April 2013. the sky is green is stated in http://anotherExample on 2nd April 2013. Don't we need both concepts? Brian
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2001 10:56:59 UTC