[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
John Cowan wrote:
> Jonathan Borden scripsit:
>
>
>>There isn;t much point in discussing either of these topics further, they
>>are included in RDF for legacy purposes but left *undefined*. This is a
>>polite way of saying that both of the above are *useless* -- you can't even
>>argue the topic, because the WD gives no meaning over which to argue -- the
>>ultimate in damned by faint praise.
>
>
> Umm, I think you are severely over-interpreting. It's quite common for
> a formal semantics to be incomplete, either because the omitted items
> are intractable, or because they're just too annoying to specify.
> That doesn't mean they aren't part of the deal.
Johnathan isn't overinterpreting anything. RDF Reification is broken
on a number of levels - it doesn't do what the original authors
thought that it would, the users seem to want something else that
isn't what the authors though or did,, none of those are are
actually reification (about the only thing firm thing I can say
about RDF reification is that it's an abuse of terms). Ideally it
would be thrown out, recognized for the useless contraption that it
is. I don't think anyone could reasoably claim RDF reification could
be salvaged by giving it a formal semantics.
Bill de hÓra
|
