- From: McBride, Brian <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:48:56 -0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <larsga@ontopia.net>
- Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>
> > I would be very careful about depending on "X represents the > stating of the statement". This is not part of the formal > meaning of reification in RDF, but is, instead, at best the > informal, unsanctioned intent that applications might want to > put on reification. I agree with Peter here who understands the formal semantics orders of magnitude better than I. The interpretation I was offering is informal and reflects the motivation leading to the WG adopting the test case confirming that s, p, and o are not sufficient to identify a reified statement. If you decided to use the reification vocabulary you should give careful consideration to any use that is inconsistent with the informal interpretation I have suggested and but bear in mind that the formal semantics does not restrict interpretations in this way. Brian
Received on Wednesday, 22 March 2006 22:49:13 UTC