- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 10:53:56 +0000
- To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
I vaguely remember that debate. I'm not sure that those of us involved really had a clear idea what was meant - speaking for myself, I didn't. Looking back in hindsight, I think we were crudely trying to distinguish between a "statement" as a linguistic/syntactic entity (a "token"), and a "stating" being its interpretation (or its denotation under some interpretation?). #g -- At 08:23 PM 11/7/01 -0500, Frank Manola wrote: >For the benefit of someone else needing "bozon terms", would someone care >to translate "stating" into some piece of vocabulary that has been used on >*this* mailing list? Is a "stating", for example, an "inscription" or "token"? [...] >Brian McBride wrote: [...] >>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. ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2001 06:38:04 UTC