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

Re: closing semantic issues (reification)

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 10:53:56 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
I vaguely remember that debate.  I'm not sure that those of us involved 
really had a clear idea what was meant - speaking for myself, I 
didn't.  Looking back in hindsight, I think we were crudely trying to 
distinguish between a "statement" as a linguistic/syntactic entity (a 
"token"), and a "stating" being its interpretation (or its denotation under 
some interpretation?).


At 08:23 PM 11/7/01 -0500, Frank Manola wrote:
>For the benefit of someone else needing "bozon terms", would someone care 
>to translate "stating" into some piece of vocabulary that has been used on 
>*this* mailing list?  Is a "stating", for example, an "inscription" or "token"?


>Brian McBride wrote:
>>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.

Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2001 06:38:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:06 UTC