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

Re: reification "subagenda"

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:16:25 +0000 (GMT)
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
cc: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0202151015130.15622-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
On 14 Feb 2002, Dan Connolly wrote:

> On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 11:21, Graham Klyne wrote:
> > 1. I agree that M&S allows only one statement with given sub, pred, obj.
> >
> > 2. M&S may not specifically admit more than one reification of a statement,
> > but it also does not (to me) clearly deny the possibility.
>
> Hmm... that's an angle I hadn't considered.
>
> But how do you reconcile point 2. with text like
>   A statement and its corresponding reified statement
> ? That's pretty clear that they're in 1-1 correspondence,
> no?

No, not necessarily in English; at least, I've never read it that way,
although I can see how it might be read like that. Whatever.

> I'm still trying to decide whether I care enough to
> go on record as opposing this decision.
> I think the argument we made for removing
> aboutEachPrefix applies pretty well to reification.

-- 
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
Solution: (n) a watered-down version of something neat.
Received on Friday, 15 February 2002 05:16:31 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:12 EDT