- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:00:31 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, Sergey Melnik wrote: > Brian, > > I'd just like to reiterate some of the arguments for making reification > a built-in feature (possibly as an optional layer): > > - in M&S, reified statements need to have a URI. It looks like they > should be unique, but nobody wants to deal with uniqueness, but still > some sort of URIs need to be assigned, so we end up having to deal with > different URIs denoting the same statement etc. I don't understand "need to have a URI" here. RDF M&S allows us to describe lots of things that don't have URIs (though they may in-principle be namable with URIs...). Can you explain the sense in which reified statements "need" to have a URI? Or "have" for that matter: do you mean that we can't represent reified statements without assigning a URI to them? Dan
Received on Monday, 18 June 2001 00:01:37 UTC