W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Proposed response for timbl-02 (reification semantics)

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:24:37 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 16:54 09/04/2003 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:


>>As Director, I wonder about whether the group can claim this part of
>>the spec to have reached its implementation requirement,
>>if the parsers parse the information but the semantics have not been
>>field tested.
>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0137.html
>I thought that was addressed by the uses we had identified...

Hope so - but that's why I'm suggesting we document more than just Mike's.

>>We had three folks say at the telecon that they used reification as 
>>defined.  Mike has written his up.  I recall that Patrick and Frank were 
>>the others.  We also have the p3p rdf schema.  I suggest we also ask 
>>Patrick and Frank to say document their use cases on the record so we can 
>>point to them from the WG response.
>>Patrick, Frank - you ok with that?
>I didn't catch that Frank was using this.  That would be four users known 
>to us.

Maybe I misremembered.

>>That would still leaves Tim's point
>>(Remember the story of the man who wrote make(1) and a few
>>days later realized that the tab/space distinction in the Makefile
>>syntax was a mess, but didn't like to change it because by that time
>>several of his colleagues were using the syntax?)
>>which I read as saying that for the long term good of the semantic web we 
>>should ignore the short term pain.  Tim will have the option of coming 
>>back and saying that, but we will at least have differentiated between 
>>there being no use (which is what I think Tim might believe) and not 
>>enough use.
>That's for the working group to decide.  My action was to draft a response 
>based on the decision we made.  (So far, we've decided that pain/confusion 
>of keeping it is not so great...  it's not as if we've only had "a few 
>days" to think about it.  Also, it appears that the R-vocabulary is 
>useful, but not for what Tim wants to do.  It doesn't feel like a 
>corresponding situation to me.)

Right - we are in agreement here - sorry if I wasn't clear.  The WG has 
decided and yes, your action  is to write the formal response matching that 
decision.  Avoiding military metaphors, I'm suggesting we get our ducks 
well lined up.

>>Also, I think we agreed to put health warnings on semantics and schema so 
>>that folks were aware of what reification isn't appropriate for.
>I guess I should add that to the response?

Yes please.

Received on Thursday, 10 April 2003 12:23:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:05 UTC