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

Re: use/mention and reification

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:02:12 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020125095348.02f2c770@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 07:56 23/01/2002 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
[...]

  That is:
>if there aren't a bunch of people out
>in the community who understand rdf:subject
>the way I do, then the well-known-name
>does me little good; I can just make
>up my own namespace.

Right.  We have two possible meanings of rdf:subject and we have to choose 
which one rdf:subject means and leave the other one for a different vocabulary.

Dan's statement implies that the reification support in RDF/XML is of 
little/no value to him, since he'd lose that switching to another 
vocabulary.  Is that true of others supporting the 'object of rdf:subject 
is a URI' position?

We have two different things to say and we could use two different 
vocabularies to say it.  The things that distinguish the rdf:subject 
vocabulary is:

   o there is syntactic support for it in rdf/xml
   o there are existing implementations.

Brian
Received on Friday, 25 January 2002 05:03:05 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:43:59 EDT