W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: reification terminology question

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 10:10:18 +0100 (BST)
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0204251008130.23534-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Frank Manola wrote:

> Pat Hayes wrote:
> >
> > Guys, I would like some advise on the preferred terminology to use
> > when discussing reification.
> >
> snip
> > 2. Is there a preferred terminology to refer to the bnode which
> > denotes the triple in the reification, ie _:x in this example?
> Preferred by whom?  A possibility is "one of those pieces of reification
> s@&%*$#t", but that's probably not what you mean (accurate, mind you,
> but a bit long, and probably wouldn't be allowed in a W3C Rec).

Heh, unless you ensure it uses "-ize" instead of "-ise" in all the
appropriate places.

Preferred name: "The (b)node that denotes the triple in the
reification"? It depends on how many times you need to write it. "The
reifying bnode" might be an acceptable alternative, providing you
introduce the phrase first.

jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk
Theoremhood is positively decidable.
It just takes time at least exponential in the length of the proof.
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 09:26:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:57 UTC