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

Re: closing semantic issues (reification)

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 15:52:02 +0000
Message-ID: <3BE958A2.2000608@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
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 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:42:33 EDT