W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > February 2002

Re: reification test case

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 07:42:17 -0800
Message-ID: <007b01c1af24$dbafcea0$657ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

> This debate does bring up an interesting question:  What is RDF?  My view
> is that RDF is what is stated in RDF M&S
(http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax)
> and that other documents (including email discussions) are not part of
> RDF.

Well M&S does not explicitly state that there *cannot* be more than one
reification of a given statement.  If it did, then you might have a case.

> So I'm still looking for wording in RDF M&S that indicates that there can
> be more than one reification of a given statement.

People can say anything they want about statements,  we cannot smush all
those together on one big RDF node.  It doesn't work.   And for the record,
Libby made an excellent summary of this long standing debate at:

http://ilrt.org/discovery/2000/11/statements/

I think any reasonable person who reads that dialogue would come to the
conclusion that there is far more support for statings being multiples than
the other way around.  In fact, outside of legalistic arguments, I cannot
find a single serious argument for your position.

What is really motivating you to lobby against fixing this?

Seth Russell
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 10:45:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:41 GMT