RE: rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr

Jeremy:
> >   - this favours a reading of the relevant contradiction in M&S in which
> >para232 is dropped and para214 is preferred.
Brian:
> I see no contradiction.  I see an overriding of a general rule in a
> specific case.

We differ.

>
> In my view, what you propose is better than the original, but it is a
> change to the original spec, not a clarification of a contradiction.

It is true that it is a change; but we are required to change contradictory
text.

Jeremy:
> >  - My proposed resolution is very simple, and hence makes reification
> > significantly more usable, and less of a barrier to RDF take-up.
Brian:
> That is over egging things a bit.  Do you really think the problems with
> reification lie in this obscure bit of syntax?
>

This is one of the problems.
My personal preference is to drop reification entirely; I am not yet ready
to propose that yet. If we are keeping it we should do our best to make it
usable, within the constraints of our charter.
I feel very unhappy with keeping reification if we do not address any of the
problems with it.

Jeremy