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

Re: Proposed response for timbl-02 (reification semantics) (V2)

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:25:02 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030411141449.05088b10@localhost>
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Graham,

this looks good to me, except we don't have a reference to the 
decision.  Suggest modify the second para to:

[[

Having considered your comment about changing the semantics of reification, 
and subsequent suggestions to remove reification altogether [2] the RDFCore 
WG has resolved

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0128.html

not to accept this comment.  (This response does not address the bagId 
question you raised, which is being dealt with in a separate response.)

]]

and with that change its ready to go.

Brian

At 12:09 11/04/2003 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:

>This version has a link to Patrick's message as another use-case, and 
>mentions that we'll add some additional "health warnings".
>
><draft text>
>With reference to:
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#timbl-02
>
>We have considered your comment about changing the semantics of 
>reification, and subsequent suggestions to remove reification altogether 
>[2].  (This response does not address the bagId question you raised, which 
>is being dealt with in a separate response.)
>
>In our discussions, we noted three significant applications that use 
>reificiation as currently defined ([1], [5], and one other user (RolandS?) 
>who was reported to use reification as currently defined).  We note and 
>agree that reification as defined does not address the particular problems 
>you hoped it would solve [3], but considering that other users of RDF have 
>found it useful leads us to the conclusion that reification should remain 
>as defined.
>
>We believe that the clarification of reification that you suggest [3] is 
>provided by the discussion and non-entailment mentioned in the RDF formal 
>semantics [4].
>
>The working group has agreed to include some additional "health warnings" 
>on the corresponding semantics and schema descriptions so that folks are 
>alerted to some uses for which reification is not appropriate.
>
>Can you please respond to <www-rdf-comments@w3.org> indicating whether 
>this response answers your concern.  Thank you.
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0108.html
>
>[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0241.html
>
>[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0477.html
>(recorded as issue timbl-02:)
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0497.html
>
>[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#Reif
>
>[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0167.html
>
></draft text>
>
>#g
>
>
>-------------------
>Graham Klyne
><GK@NineByNine.org>
>PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Friday, 11 April 2003 09:24:40 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:56:55 EDT