W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > December 2001

Re: Reification

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 16:18:19 +0100
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <MABBLGKMPIJFCKFGDBEPKEIECAAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

> I think we should not *drop* reification, just not encourage it.
> We can treat reification as a purely syntactic macro, [...]

> I'm not sure what you're saying here.
[ ... ]
>     However, it's not clear to me that that
> observation means we can pass on [ ... the ... ]
> things for which "RDF reification" is currently cited as
> the solution.  Mind you, I don't necessarily think that "RDF
> reification", as currently defined, is the right way to do these things,
> but these seem to be basic issues in applying RDF, and I don't think we
> can punt on them.

I think my point is precisely that we SHOULD punt on them.
Despite the best efforts of the first group RDF reification has not solved
the problems it set out to solve, or any others that anyone hopes it might
solve. We are not chartered to modify it to actually solve problems (even if
we knew how), hence are choices are:
1: drop it
2: or pass on it

In fact, the observation that reification hasn't solved any problems argues
moderately convincingly that these problems don't actually need to be

I note that Dave is currently minded to continue with what I see as a
fatally flawed understanding of the syntax of reification (see subsequent
message), and as such I am now wavering from "passing" to "dropping",
however I will check with my HP colleagues before doing so ...

[I wonder if Brian with his "HP colleague" hat on may support my making a
proposal that he with his "chair" hat on then stomps on as out of charter?]

Received on Sunday, 16 December 2001 10:10:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:07 UTC