- From: Bill dehOra <BdehOra@interx.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:42:57 -0000
- To: RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
I don't think you are in conflict. As far as I can tell each member of the set of statements has an infinite number of reifications, each of which consist of four more statements. [I don't know if that kind of member expansion has odd implications for the set of statements, since every statement implies four times infinity more statements and so on: interesting if it makes refication a generative grammar and therefore procedural as well as relational, but that's beside the point]. Brian or the M&S isn't saying that there should only be one reification for each statement (though recent posts suggest I need to reread the M&S :); that's just wrong. On the other hand I don't see why merging reifications is ipso facto bad form for implementations. -Bill ----- Bill de hÓra : InterX : bdehora@interx.com - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Klyne" <GK@Dial.pipex.com> To: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> Cc: "RDF-IG" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org> Sent: 04 January 2001 20:31 Subject: RE: RDF Terminologicus : Brian, : : My objection still stands, unless someone can convince me that there really : _should_ be a one-and-only reification for any statement. : : #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 : (GK@ACM.ORG) : :
Received on Friday, 5 January 2001 04:43:38 UTC