W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2001

RE: RDF Terminologicus

From: McBride, Brian <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 22:43:56 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F2395C8@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> My objection still stands, unless someone can convince me 
> that there really 
> _should_ be a one-and-only reification for any statement.

I was not arguing that there _should_ be only one reification
of a statement.  I was arguing that that m&s effectively says
that if there is more than one reified statement representing a
statement, then they are equivalent.  Equivalence is not the 
same as identity.  The 'reification of a statement' is not the
same as a 'reified statement representing that statement'.

A future working group could choose to change the spec if they
feel that this is a mistake.

The glossary is a welcome tool which help the 
community to discuss these disputed issues.  But its not its
role to presume resolutions of disputed issues.

I'm happy to see if we can move our understanding of this issue
forward, but it would be good to do that in a separate thread
from the glossary discussion, and perhaps after we have got our
terminology to work with.


> #g
> --
> At 06:27 PM 1/4/01 +0000, McBride, Brian wrote:
> > >
> > > "reified statement" seems to be common parlance.
> >
> > From the formal model of m&s:
> >
> >   The resource r in the definition above is called the reified
> >   statement.
> >
> >Brian
> ------------
> Graham Klyne
Received on Thursday, 4 January 2001 17:44:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:34 UTC