- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:16:24 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote: > Ugh... discussion diverges > into metaphysics and philosophy. Well, some of this is helpful in understanding what the issues are, but I'd agree that it doesn't *necessarily* get us to an actual resolution. > > Here are the options I find acceptable: > > (a) Shoot reification on the grounds that > there isn't consensus about what it means > nor how to use it. > > (b) accept my proposal to clarify/change > how it works, based on my implementation > experience, DanBri's, and Jos's. Could you summarize once again what that proposal (b) is? I.e., say it in a few sentences or paragraphs so we could say (say at a telecon) "yes I agree with that statement of how reification ought to work" (or disagree, assuming one feels that way)? I don't think this request constitutes a request for "advocacy" (on the other hand, nailing this sucker would be worth a bit wouldn't it?) --Frank > > In order for this to fly, I owe a pile > of test cases. (or Jos or Danbri or > somebody(ies) who agree with this position). > > It seems that I'd have to do a bunch of > advocacy too. Bad news is: I really don't > care about it enough to prioritize > it high enough to do a bunch of advocacy. > Either my position is basically understood > and agreed by the WG and the community, > or I'm happy to (a) shoot it. That is: > if there aren't a bunch of people out > in the community who understand rdf:subject > the way I do, then the well-known-name > does me little good; I can just make > up my own namespace. > > > -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2002 13:08:46 UTC