- From: Lee Jonas <ljonas@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 21:37:42 +0100
- To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote: >> >>My understanding: >> >>Summary >>======= >>There are at least two competing proposals for representing contexts in RDF. >>The concept of 'context', although similar, differs slightly with respect to >>'higher-order' statements, ('reification' and making statements about >>statements). > >I wonder, could I make a plea that y'all change your terminology here >slightly? The term 'higher-order' already has an accepted usage now >for about80 years, and it isn't this, so this is likely to cause all >kinds of confusion and wasted time. What you are talking about is >meta-language statements (statements about other statements), not >higher-order statements. Yes, higher-order is incorrect terminology. I am a bit confused about calling it a meta-language, though. It depends on whether RDF is a 'language' or not. Agreed certain RDF 'vocabularies' can be thought of as languages, so in that sense it would hold true. Though presumably I could more generally call it "meta-metadata" - the first layer of statements represent data about data (metadata) - the next layer is considered to be data about metadata (meta-metadata), ad nauseam. regards Lee
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2001 16:35:29 UTC