Re: closing semantic issues (reification)

Dan Connolly wrote:

[...]


> Maybe we can convince
> the implementors that have implemented it this way that it's
> a bug. But it's a widely deployed bug. Perhaps not a lot
> of applications depend on this behaviour, and it's
> feasible to "fix" the bug; i.e. redeploy the implementations.


There was a long thread a while ago on rdf interest arguing that M&S could be 
interpreted so that reification really represented "statings" not statements. 
Suggestive that the community might by it.

Pat keeps saying that the M&S version of reification is broken.  It would be 
great if he could spell out in bozon terms (i.e. so I can understand) why.

It seems to me that I want to say:

   I believe the sky is blue

in which case I'm asserting my attitude towards the abstract sentence -the sky 
is blue-.

I also want to be able to say

   the sky is green is stated in http://example on 1st April 2013.
   the sky is green is stated in http://anotherExample on 2nd April 2013.

Don't we need both concepts?

Brian

Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2001 10:56:59 UTC