- From: McBride, Brian <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 22:43:56 -0000
- To: RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> > My objection still stands, unless someone can convince me > that there really > _should_ be a one-and-only reification for any statement. I was not arguing that there _should_ be only one reification of a statement. I was arguing that that m&s effectively says that if there is more than one reified statement representing a statement, then they are equivalent. Equivalence is not the same as identity. The 'reification of a statement' is not the same as a 'reified statement representing that statement'. A future working group could choose to change the spec if they feel that this is a mistake. The glossary is a welcome tool which help the community to discuss these disputed issues. But its not its role to presume resolutions of disputed issues. I'm happy to see if we can move our understanding of this issue forward, but it would be good to do that in a separate thread from the glossary discussion, and perhaps after we have got our terminology to work with. Brian > > #g > -- > > At 06:27 PM 1/4/01 +0000, McBride, Brian wrote: > > > > > > "reified statement" seems to be common parlance. > > > > From the formal model of m&s: > > > > The resource r in the definition above is called the reified > > statement. > > > >Brian > > ------------ > Graham Klyne > (GK@ACM.ORG) >
Received on Thursday, 4 January 2001 17:44:06 UTC