- From: McBride, Brian <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 21:05:55 -0000
- To: RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> As for aggregating: I think different reifications may refer > to the same > statement but still be distinct reifications. One > reification may be used > to say something about one stating, and another to say > something different > about that statement. I suggest that this is currently an unresolved issue. Its great to have a glossary, but it should remain neutral on topics that are not resolved. I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a broken record on this, but I believe what m&s says is that a reified statement represents a statement. I've been interpreting that to mean that any property which is true of a statement is true of any reified statement which represents it, and vice versa. It must therefore be true of any other reified statement representing that same statement. In other words, if RS1 and RS2 are reified statements representing the same statement S, the (p, RS1, o) => (p, RS2, o). Brian
Received on Thursday, 4 January 2001 16:06:00 UTC