- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:45:00 -0500
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
* Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com> [2002-01-22 10:15+0200] > On 2002-01-21 21:00, "ext Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org> wrote: > > > On 21 Jan 2002, Dan Connolly wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 04:06, Jan Grant wrote: > >>> On 18 Jan 2002, Dan Connolly wrote: > >> [...] > >>> I still don't understand why you can't pronounce > >>> > >>> <sentence> <rdf:Subject> <mary> . > >>> > >>> as "the sentence has a subject whose referent is (the person) Mary" - > >>> ie, if you just change your intuition about what rdf:Subject "means" > >>> does this go away? > >> > >> Well, yes. That is: it becomes completely useless to me. > > > > For me too. I've used RDF's reification vocab to stuff one RDF graph > > inside another to carry it thru RDF environments without the inner graph > > content being asserted alongside the 'outer' graph. So I second DanC's > > point. > > I don't see that a reified statement constitutes assertion, per the > present treatment where subject, predicate, etc. denote the resource > nodes bearing URI labels rather than URI literals. to clarify: I didn't say that reified statements are asserted; that would be contrary to the letter and intent of M&S, not to mention common sense. I said that I've been using reification as a mechanism for encoding RDF within RDF in a non-asserted form. By 'inner graph' I meant the structure that is encoded using rdf:Statement, rdf:predicate, rdf:object and rdf:subject. [objections to a position I've never held snipped] Sorry if my phrasing caused any confusion, Dan
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2002 03:45:06 UTC