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

RE: RDF Terminologicus

From: Bill dehOra <BdehOra@interx.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:42:57 -0000
Message-ID: <23CF4BF2C499D411907E00508BDC95E131F82B@ntmews_01.interx.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:47 GMT