- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 14:21:01 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>, swbp <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>
Do you have any other ideas, Dan? Those of us who would prefer a different term, need to propose one if we want to be able to persuade others. Jeremy Dan Brickley wrote: > > Guus Schreiber wrote: > > >> Reification is the proper term. For example, it is also used in UML >> books to describe association classes. >> I would suggest to put in a NOTE in the text to indicate that the term >> is used in the general sense and does ot refer to RDF reification. > > > Reification would be the proper term normally. It is unfortunate that > the RDF spec uses up such a useful word, and particularly unfortunate > that RDF reification isn't a particularly useful representational > mechanism. I would advise against using the word 'reification' (even > with a NOTE) to describe "non-RDF" reification in an RDF context. Even > writing that last sentence tied me in knots, since non-RDF-reification > (eg. the n-ary conventions) is of course something we do in RDF. The > word is gone, taken from us... to use it is to encourage its continued > use, and not everyone will be as careful as us to include a disclaimer > NOTE. I guess I'm not arguing that we must completely avoid its use (eg. > in footnotes, parentheses, discussion of relation to UML etc.), just to > minimise references to 'reification' wherever possible. > > Dan > > >
Received on Friday, 7 May 2004 09:22:49 UTC