>Aaron says: > >Alright, but do dark triples fix reification? > >Seth: > >Didn't know that reification was broken. I though it was resolved by the WG >very nicely. > >Grahm says: > >[[ >I think not, because they don't of themselves provide a way to identify a >statement. Of course, one can use the reification vocabulary and >assert(sic) that it's "dark", but I guess that's not what you meant by >"fix"? >]] > >Seth continues: > >I fail to see how the triple refered to by a reification quad is *not* dark >in the graph which contains it. For example: > >In a graph containing this reification quad: > >_:1 rdf:type rdf:Statement. >_:1 rdf:subject foo:S. >_:1 rdf:predicate foo:V. >_:1 rdf:object foo:O. > >The triple: > >foo:S foo:V foo:O. > >Is *certainly* dark. Well, its not even there, so I would say the questions of its darkness or lightness don't even arise. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayesReceived on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 18:58:59 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 18:22:13 GMT