Re: reification in RDF

lol! yes, sorry, reification. I accidentally leaked my sekret proposal for
RDF '2.0 Zen edition'... ;)

Dan

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Frank Manola wrote:

>
> 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2002 15:03:39 UTC