- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:28:28 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Brian McBride wrote: > At 17:32 13/02/2002 -0500, Frank Manola wrote: > [...] > >>> I think this decision effectively makes rdf:subject etc. vocabulary >>> useless, i.e. not having any special meaning (I believe Pat made this >>> point earlier). In other words, 4-triple reification becomes effectively >>> deprecated (which is fine with me). >> > > I disagree. It works just fine, in either Statement or Stating > interpretation for my use of it in the P3P schema. > > >> How about adding a straw poll on the last sentence to the reification >> subagenda? > > > We already decided not to shoot it. Please move forwards, not backwards. I agree that the *sentiment* was not to shoot it, but I don't believe there was an explicit resolution taken about the 4-triple syntax. I view this as "saying explicitly what was decided", not "moving backwards." (NB: If we *really* want to move backwards, all we need to do is keep leaving stuff like this inexplicit, and watch it come up again.) --Frank -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 10:24:41 UTC