- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 16:52:03 +0200
- To: "ext jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-01-24 2:47, "ext jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com> wrote: > >> 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. I don't see how we can do this, as reification is at present the most straightforward way to qualify statements. One could simulate statement qualification by using anonymous node objects which bear the qualifying properties, but that seems alot more messy to me and gets in the way of queries which have to account for all variations of qualified and non-qualified statements. >> (b) accept my proposal to clarify/change >> how it works, based on my implementation >> experience, DanBri's, and Jos's. I don't think we can toss out reification as it's now defined, but we may be able to provide for the distinction between assertions, statements, and quotations (see my other posting on this from today). Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2002 10:22:45 UTC