Re: cannot work with reification proposal 1

On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com wrote:

> Indeed, "cannot work with" instead of "cannot
> live with" (because life is mostly work for us).
> We thought to have a responsability (as an engineer)
> and when we don't succeed with something, we fail
> and backtrack.
> We didn't succeed with proposal 1.
> We did do the job with a kind of proposal 2
> (the quote() stuff) but we can also understand
> and follow that that is not an option.
> We now do the job with N3 contexts and I'm
> convinced that Pat will convince you!

Can you live with the RDF spec having a (clarified version of) option 1,
so long as its limitations are made clear?

While I have big misgivings about the utility of rdf:Statement etc as
currently defined/used, I've come to the view that it has some uses, and
that a fixed up version requires substantial new vocabulary (eg. to handle
blank nodes properly). I'd be happy seeing folk collaborate on a W3C Note
to this end. So while I don't myself have much use for the current
reification machinery, I'm happy so long as the spec is clear to warn folk
about its possible risks / mis-use.

The N3 contexts angle is interesting. I look forward to hearing Pat's
pitch for why this is feasibly do-able...

Dan