Re: cannot work with reification proposal 1

> > Indeed, "cannot work with" instead of "cannot
> > live with" (because life is mostly work for us).
> > We thought to have a responsability (as an engineer)
> > and when we don't succeed with something, we fail
> > and backtrack.
> > We didn't succeed with proposal 1.
> > We did do the job with a kind of proposal 2
> > (the quote() stuff) but we can also understand
> > and follow that that is not an option.
> > We now do the job with N3 contexts and I'm
> > convinced that Pat will convince you!
>
> Can you live with the RDF spec having a (clarified version of) option 1,
> so long as its limitations are made clear?

Well Dan, a fixed proposal 1, I'm quite sure, will be something
close to proposal 2, which I thought was not an option...

> While I have big misgivings about the utility of rdf:Statement etc as
> currently defined/used, I've come to the view that it has some uses, and
> that a fixed up version requires substantial new vocabulary (eg. to handle
> blank nodes properly). I'd be happy seeing folk collaborate on a W3C Note
> to this end. So while I don't myself have much use for the current
> reification machinery, I'm happy so long as the spec is clear to warn folk
> about its possible risks / mis-use.

that's quite close to proposal 3, seems to me

> The N3 contexts angle is interesting. I look forward to hearing Pat's
> pitch for why this is feasibly do-able...

which is the good news about proposal 3

--
Jos

Received on Saturday, 26 January 2002 07:30:19 UTC