- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:59:51 +0100
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
At 08:41 AM 6/22/01 -0400, Jonathan Borden wrote: >Graham, > >The problem with the way RDF reification is implemented is just that -- it >is an implementation technique for attaching an rdf:ID to a statement using >a set of triples. Jonathan, Well, the point of what I'm trying to do is to put the whole idea onto a more sound footing -- to define some kind of meaning for reification so that we can test whether or not it matches some general expectations about what reification might achieve. I don't mean to suggest that this is the best way to move forward -- as you know, I have much sympathy for alternative forms of handling this problem, and I agree that my abstract syntax for reification looks pretty ugly. BUT, the attempt to try and find some common understanding is not helped by changing the ground-rules. Hence my abstract syntax/semantics attempts to follow the current specification. If it helps to crystalize some consensus about what we're trying to achieve, THEN I think we can more fruitfully consider the best way of achieving those goals. #g
Received on Friday, 22 June 2001 11:35:53 UTC