- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:45:25 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>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? Well, 'corresponding' doesnt have any real teeth, so its not clear what it means. >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. > I think the point is that the way we are going, there is no real need to officially 'remove' it. In effect we are marginalizing it, so that it is permissible but kind of harmless and almost content-free as far as entailments are concerned. That allows people who want to use it to go on doing so without feeling that they are being dirty, and it doesnt really hurt anyone else as its no real burden on developers. So it seems like a win-win. Pat PS, whaddaya think of the idea of allowing a source as a property of a reification? Are there any obvious black holes in it? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0403.html Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 15 February 2002 16:45:23 UTC