- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:16:25 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- cc: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 14 Feb 2002, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 11:21, Graham Klyne wrote: > > 1. I agree that M&S allows only one statement with given sub, pred, obj. > > > > 2. M&S may not specifically admit more than one reification of a statement, > > but it also does not (to me) clearly deny the possibility. > > Hmm... that's an angle I hadn't considered. > > But how do you reconcile point 2. with text like > A statement and its corresponding reified statement > ? That's pretty clear that they're in 1-1 correspondence, > no? No, not necessarily in English; at least, I've never read it that way, although I can see how it might be read like that. Whatever. > I'm still trying to decide whether I care enough to > go on record as opposing this decision. > I think the argument we made for removing > aboutEachPrefix applies pretty well to reification. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk Solution: (n) a watered-down version of something neat.
Received on Friday, 15 February 2002 05:16:31 UTC