- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:50:23 -0500
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>On 2002-06-24 20:58, "ext Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org> wrote: > > >> The past version of the RDF MT WD discussed 'asserted triples' with the >> implication that 'unasserted triples' might also exist. This language was >> removed in the current WD, so we must conclude that the current intention of >> the current RDF MT WD is that RDF reification in fact is not an acceptable >> means of representing an 'unasserted triple'. If I am incorrect, the RDF MT >> should state this relationship -- that is the purpose of a model theory, >> isn't it? > >I agree. The MT would need to be tweaked to provide a resonable >treatment of reification with regards to expressing unasserted >triples, so as to provide for layering. That would a major 'tweak'. IN an earlier (unpublished) version of the MT, reification was treated in essentially this way. That was rejected by the WG as being incompatible with large amounts of deployed code which uses reification differently. The WG has already taken several decisions regarding reification which would make such a 'tweak' impossible. Reification is a minefield. It is simply impractical to use it in the way you want and still preserver RDF legacy code. Please give up on this one. Pat >Patrick > >-- > >Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 >Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 >Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 12:50:24 UTC