- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:51:42 -0600
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 15:54, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > Thank you Pat for this summary. I find in it > a conclusion that de-re semantics for reification are useful, > which is not the conclusion to which I come. I don't think they're useful either; but I don't think that's all that relevant to the WG's position. The fact of the matter is: there's deployed code that handles reifictation syntax, and it can only be reconciled with the de-re semantics. cf 2.17 Reifying Statements - rdf:bagID and rdf:ID http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Syntax-reifying in particular, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/example20.rdf and http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/example20.nt we have <http://example.org/> <http://example.org/stuff/1.0/prop> "blah" . and its reification includes <http://example.org/triples/#triple1> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#subject> <http://example.org/> . by analogy... [...] > This can be dramatized by asking: is the > > rdf:subject of the triple > > > > ex:Mary ex:had ex:littleLamb . > > > > a girl or a uriref ? ... this says that the rdf:subject is a girl; i.e. <#marySentence> rdf:subject ex:Mary. no quoting around ex:Mary there. :-{ That's the way (all?) the deployed RDF parsers work. The WG considered 3 options: (a) write a spec for the way the deployed code works (b) write a de dicto spec, and try to get that deployed (c) punt and we chose (a). I argued for (c) or (b), but we ultimately chose (a). I abstained. Or at least... that's the way I remember it; I can't seem to confirm from the records. We have ACTION: 2002-01-11#3: bwm - check that reification is listed as an issue ("fix/drop reification") http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0095.html but I can't find that issue in the issues list. It was item 8 on a subsequent agenda... RDFCore WG minutes for the Telecon 2002-02-01 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0010.html ... and here's Jan's re-statment of the 3 options, which made it clear that the quoting issues in the de dicto style were tricker than they looked... Proposals? Re: use/mention and reification From: Jan Grant (Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk) Date: Thu, Jan 24 2002 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0236.html but I can't find any actual decision on the matter. Odd. Aha! Those long action ids are golden... googling yields... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0100.html ==> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-identity-of-statements ... which is a closely related issue, but it's not an issue about de re vs. de dicto per se, as per the options in Jan G's message. So it looks like the WG never decided to adopt the de re semantics as opposed to de dicto; the spec just ended up de re as clarification of status quo. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2003 01:03:49 UTC