- From: Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 17:23:28 -0700
- To: Jamie Lawrence <jel03r@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> Trivial typo: In the section "Representation Pattern" the references > for reification and rdf:value are given as [3] and [4] respectively > but are actually listed as [4] and [5] in the references section. thank you. will fix. > Reification: You mention reification, which suggests that it is an > alternative to the two patterns presented in the note. Indeed, > reification is the method I thought I would use to represent these > types of complex relations (in particular, those relations depicted in > examples 1 & 2). What would be incredibly useful (at least, for us > amateurs) is a comparison between the patterns you present and RDF > reification. I noticed an email > [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Jul/0009.html] > that suggests removing the reference to reification. I would agree > that it can't really stand alone as a sentence but, perhaps rather > than removing the offending line, it could be expanded? We'll try to put a more detailed discussion of this in the next version. If someone actually has some ideas on what to say there, any help would be greatly appreciated. Natasha
Received on Monday, 2 August 2004 20:23:30 UTC