Re: use/mention and reification

I've reviewed that (again) ... basically, your argument seems to be that 
this is the only way you can figure out how to make it work (fair enough).

I'm working on some code which I plan to take in the other direction (using 
different RDF vocabulary so not currently depending on the outcome of this 
reification debate).  I could be a couple of months or so coming to a 
demonstrable conclusion.

I think it's too soon to fully decide this issue based on implementation 
experience alone.  I think I can see possibilities for a 
non-literal-quotation approach to reification.  The current exchanges 
between Jos and Pat also seem to be hinting likewise.

At this stage, can we not just earmark the vocabulary, have it behave per 
standard RDF MT semantics -- i.e. don't attempt to be specific about the 
intended interpretations just yet?

#g
--

At 01:02 PM 1/18/02 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
>As I said in today's telcon, I think
>the rdf:subject of "Mary likes Bob"
>should be a word that starts with M,
>not a female person.
>
>I sent the gory details to rdf-logic
>a while ago:
>
>Message-ID: <3B0FEF6A.BE6740CC@w3.org>
>Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 13:01:14 -0500
>From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
>To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
>CC: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>Subject: use/mention and reification: rdf:predicate/subject/object [was:
>RDF   Abstract Syntax...]
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001May/0359.html
>
>--
>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
        __
       /\ \
      /  \ \
     / /\ \ \
    / / /\ \ \
   / / /__\_\ \
  / / /________\
  \/___________/

Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 05:30:37 UTC