[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Shelley Powers 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.
>
> I agree with John -- Jonathan, I'm fairly sure you're reading more into
this
> then what the original authors intended.
I have heard this directly, in public, from the (original) author. Prior to
that I used to think that reification was just ugly. I am cc'ing him so he
can correct me if I am saying this too strongly.
>...Personally, I believe that neither
> construct is discussed further in the semantics document because each is,
in
> a way, a re-interpretation of already defined aspects of the RDF model.
??? Huh ??? The RDF Semantics document *is* the definition of the RDF
"model". It was written specifically to fix ambiguities which have resulted
from interpretations such as yours of the RDF M&S (i.e. old version).
> Containers are a typed node that has additional processing semantics
> attached.
No. Absolutely not. What "processing semantics" do you think apply? The only
special significance of RDF containers is that they have a terribly broken
syntactic transformation that occurs during the parse phase <rdf:li> ->
<rdf:_3>
However, these semantics have to do with implementation, not data,
> and as such really don't have a place within the RDF semantics document. A
> container can be replaced with a typed node and get the same RDF graph,
but
> without the processing baggage (or benefit) attached. There is no 'new'
> semantics -- the notation is more a convenience then new
conceptualization.
> Same with reification if you look at the RDF graph of a reified statement
> and break it down into its parts.
>
Please, if you are writing a book about RDF, don't say these things because
you are just going to confuse anyone and everyone who believes what you say.
You have a particular obligation to thouroughly read
http://www.w3.org/rdf-mt/ . It is a very well written document.
Jonathan
|
