- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:52:22 +0100
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 09:36 AM 6/17/01 +0100, Brian McBride wrote: >Graham Klyne wrote: > > > > > NOTE: "reification" is deliberately called out as a distinct syntax > > production, so that there is a place to hang the semantics that distinguish > > it from any other collection of facts. There is some syntactic ambiguity > > here that needs to be resolved at some level; e.g. adjusting the abstract > > syntax so that rdf:subject, rdf:object, rdf:predicate can appear *only* in > > a production for R (and not for A). > >In M&S 1.0 the statements of a reification (i.e. the rdf:type, rdf:subject, >etc ...) are no different from other statements. What difference are >you considering introducing here? The fact that a resource that is the subject of a reification quad in some way stands for the statement with the given subject/predicate/object. I think that there will be, at a some level, an interpretation function that maps resources thus represented to some aspect of the interpretation of a statement. I'm not sure how to express this, but I have some vague ideas bumbling around in my head. Hopefully they'll settle into something more concrete that I can offer. #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies Strategic Research Content Security Group <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <http://www.baltimore.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2001 07:16:13 UTC