- From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:02:09 -0500
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Jeremy Carroll wrote: >>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. > Yes, sorry, I should not have said "well defined", something like "not suitably defined for indicating specific triples" would have captured my intent better. Cheers, Tom P
Received on Friday, 19 December 2003 09:05:03 UTC