- From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 16:38:29 -0800
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Pat Hayes wrote: > > Sergey, I think we are violently agreeing but using terminology at > cross purposes. When I said lets trash reification, I meant by > 'reification' to refer to the RDF syntax for reification, ie the use > of 4-triples. Gotcha. > I think you mean 'reification' in the sense of 'any > technique for associating a name with a sentence' or some such very > general usage. Seems to me that you were saying that in current > practice this is not, and should not be, done by using 4-triples. In > which case, to re-phrase my suggestion less ambiguously, let us > hereby IGNORE such 4-triples usage. It is simply normal RDF usage, > and has no special meaning, so we do not need to even mention it > (other perhaps than to emphasize that it has no particular special > meaning.) If nobody uses the 4-triple style, I would agree with you, but I see it a part of our job to provide some alternative mechanism so that applications could exchange reified statements interoperably. For example, we could go as far as to say that rdf:subject etc. to be treated as syntax only, producing no triples (just like rdf:Description or rdf:RDF do not produce triples directly). However, even if we move reification to the syntax in this or other way, we owe some kind of explanation wrt the graph representation / interpretation of such "pumpkins". Sergey
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 19:08:19 UTC