W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2003

Re: Trust, Context, Justification and Quintuples

From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:02:09 -0500
Message-ID: <3FE304E1.4070603@comcast.net>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>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.
> 

Yes, sorry, I should not have said "well defined",  something like "not 
suitably defined for indicating specific triples" would have captured my 
intent better.

Cheers,

Tom P
Received on Friday, 19 December 2003 09:05:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:03 GMT