Proposed response for timbl-02 (reification semantics)

Here's something from which to knock off the rough edges (and blatant 
errors)...

<draft text>
With reference to:
   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#timbl-02

We have considered your comment about changing the semantics of 
reification, and subsequent suggestions to remove reification altogether 
[2].  (This response does not address the bagId question you raised, which 
will be dealt with in a separate response.)

In our discussions, we noted three significant applications that use 
reificiation as currently defined (e.g. [1], two others users who claimed 
to use reification as currently defined were RolandS(?) and Patrick 
Stickler).  We note and agree that reification as defined does not address 
the particular problems you hoped it would solve [3], but considering that 
other users of RDF have found it useful leads us to the conclusion that 
reification should remain as defined.

We believe that the clarification of reification that you suggest [3] is 
provided by the discussion and non-entailment mentioned in the RDF formal 
semantics [4].

Can you please respond to <www-rdf-comments@w3.org> indicating whether this 
response answers your concern.  Thank you.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0108.html

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0241.html

[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0477.html
(recorded as issue timbl-02:)
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0497.html

[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#Reif
</draft text>

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E

Received on Monday, 7 April 2003 05:35:36 UTC