- From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:04:43 -0800
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Brian McBride wrote: > > At 17:32 13/02/2002 -0500, Frank Manola wrote: > [...] > >>I think this decision effectively makes rdf:subject etc. vocabulary > >>useless, i.e. not having any special meaning (I believe Pat made this > >>point earlier). In other words, 4-triple reification becomes effectively > >>deprecated (which is fine with me). > > I disagree. It works just fine, in either Statement or Stating > interpretation for my use of it in the P3P schema. If none of the entailments holds, no special semantics is associated with rdf:subject et al vocabulary. In other words, using rdf:subject instead of ex:foo would not convey additional information (in P3P schema or anywhere else)... > >How about adding a straw poll on the last sentence to the reification > >subagenda? > > We already decided not to shoot it. Please move forwards, not backwards. I'm subscribing under Frank's reply here. Sergey
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 13:47:42 UTC