Re: reification in RDF

Dan--

To further clarify your comments, you were referring to *reification*
going from the Primer (that is, the current section in the RDF Primer
describing reification, which is largely redundant with the coverage in
the RDF Semantics document, is being proposed for elimination).  If
*RDF* goes from the Primer...well, I know some people would prefer a
shorter Primer, and that certainly would shorten it!

--Frank

Dan Brickley wrote:
> 
> I should clarify my comments. I was referring to RDF going *from the Primer*.
> 
> BTW pls don't use www-rdf-comments as a way of sending comments on RDF
> Core discussions in progress. The www-rdf-interest list would be more
> appropriate (or IRC), though its easy to take things out of context.
> Feedback on the published TRs is very welcome here, though.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Dan
> 
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Seth Russell wrote:
> 
> >
> > re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Nov/0446.html
> >
> > where Dan says
> >
> > [[
> > I'd be happy to see reification go. Judging by RDF Interest Group
> > discussions, once folk find out about RDF reification, they feel somehow
> > obliged to try to use it for various modeling tasks that it isn't really
> > appropriate/useful for.
> > ]]
> >
> > How else are we to give our RDF statments provenance ?
> >
> > Seth Russell
> >
> >
> >
> >

-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-8752

Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2002 14:57:16 UTC