- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:06:15 -0000
- To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Jeremy: > > - this favours a reading of the relevant contradiction in M&S in which > >para232 is dropped and para214 is preferred. Brian: > I see no contradiction. I see an overriding of a general rule in a > specific case. We differ. > > In my view, what you propose is better than the original, but it is a > change to the original spec, not a clarification of a contradiction. It is true that it is a change; but we are required to change contradictory text. Jeremy: > > - My proposed resolution is very simple, and hence makes reification > > significantly more usable, and less of a barrier to RDF take-up. Brian: > That is over egging things a bit. Do you really think the problems with > reification lie in this obscure bit of syntax? > This is one of the problems. My personal preference is to drop reification entirely; I am not yet ready to propose that yet. If we are keeping it we should do our best to make it usable, within the constraints of our charter. I feel very unhappy with keeping reification if we do not address any of the problems with it. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2002 07:06:33 UTC