- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:31:16 +0100
- To: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@comcast.net>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> 2) The interpretation of a reified statement is not well defined. For > example, it is NOT a representation for any actual triple in the data > store, and it is NOT considered "asserted"... So what is a reified > statement and how should it relate to the other triples? > No that goes too far - the interpretation of a reified statement is clearly defined by RDF Semantics - but this differs from the applications that reification is often used for. That was the best the WG could do and it is a known limitation with the current round of RDF. That's why thing like contexts ended up in the postponed pile. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 19 December 2003 07:32:03 UTC