> 2) The interpretation of a reified statement is not well defined. For > example, it is NOT a representation for any actual triple in the data > store, and it is NOT considered "asserted"... So what is a reified > statement and how should it relate to the other triples? > No that goes too far - the interpretation of a reified statement is clearly defined by RDF Semantics - but this differs from the applications that reification is often used for. That was the best the WG could do and it is a known limitation with the current round of RDF. That's why thing like contexts ended up in the postponed pile. JeremyReceived on Friday, 19 December 2003 07:32:03 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:03 GMT