On 2002-06-24 20:58, "ext Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org> wrote: > The past version of the RDF MT WD discussed 'asserted triples' with the > implication that 'unasserted triples' might also exist. This language was > removed in the current WD, so we must conclude that the current intention of > the current RDF MT WD is that RDF reification in fact is not an acceptable > means of representing an 'unasserted triple'. If I am incorrect, the RDF MT > should state this relationship -- that is the purpose of a model theory, > isn't it? I agree. The MT would need to be tweaked to provide a resonable treatment of reification with regards to expressing unasserted triples, so as to provide for layering. Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.comReceived on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 03:28:37 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 23 April 2007 18:20:00 GMT