- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:26:34 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: Bob MacGregor <macgregor@isi.edu>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, macgreg@isi.edu
Brian McBride wrote: > At 16:10 26/02/2003 -0500, Frank Manola wrote: > >> Brian-- >> >> Can I have an issue for this please? Basically I'm raising this (or at >> least the part about the Primer; > > > You certainly can, but I'm not sure what the issue about the primer is. > > My (hurried) reading is that Bob is dissatisfied with the specification > of reification, not with the primer. I expect that when we discuss an > issue, we will consider what other documents are affected by any > decision we make and action any appropriate changes. > > However, if you feel there is a separate issue with the primer, then if > you could provide a summary, I'll be happy to record it. > > Fair? Fine with me. The issue about the Primer was raised in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0125.html It was explicitly about the Primer apparently illustrating a nested statement, which wasn't the intent, and I agreed to change that. However, later messages in the thread brought in propositional attitudes and other issues, and I wasn't sure that I could handle those just in the Primer. I agree that Bob's basic concerns are with the specification of reification, which is why I explicitly mentioned the connection. At the same time, if we change the specification of reification, then we probably need to change the Primer (and I'd like some guidance on how, when we come to that). --Frank -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 19:10:35 UTC