Re: reification/annotations

In the absence of a pointer to the discussion and resolution, is it not
the case that the presumption must be that the matter was (at least) not
so resolved?

peter


From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: reification/annotations
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 23:59:51 -0400

> I'm recalling that we discussed it and thought we had resolved it but
> was not sure, hence the question. If someone can pull out the discussion
> where (if anywhere) we decided this one way or another, then that would
> be helpful. Otherwise we can discuss it tomorrow.
> 
> (Tracker: this is relevant to Issue-67 and Issue-81)
> 
> -Alan
> 
> On May 27, 2008, at 11:34 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> >> Had we not decided to include the triple being reified in the
> >> serialization when using reification?
> >
> > My recollection is that indeed we have not decided to include the
> triple
> > being reified in the serialization when using reification.  (Of
> course,
> > my recollection may be faulty, but then where is the discussion and
> > resolution for the change?)
>

Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 09:45:17 UTC