Thanks for the pointer Jonathan, I think I mentioned I'm still plowing
through the new suite.

I certainly wouldn't have taken the same interpretation. If this is for
legacy purpose only then I would have expected an explicit statement of its
deprecation, however gentle.

Ok, so how does one tell where a statement came from?

Let's say I have a triple database for my address book. My auntie sends me
her contact details in an RDF document. Shortly after sending, she realises
that she made a mistake on the address and so corrects this and send the new
document. Unfortunately, I receive the second document before the first. The
documents each contain a datestamp, expressed as an RDF statement about that
document. I have received all the information necessary, but how do I know
from the triples I've received which is the current address?

Cheers,
Danny.

-----------
Danny Ayers

Semantic Web Log :
http://www.citnames.com/blog

"The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne." - Chaucer



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jonathan@[...].org]
> Sent: 20 November 2002 04:44
> To: Danny Ayers; Shelley Powers; uche.ogbuji@[...].com
> Cc: xml-dev@[...].org
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] RDF for unstructured databases, RDF for axiomatic
> 
> 
> 
> Danny Ayers wrote:
> 
> > ... Reification shouldn't be the 'big ugly' (as Shelley
> > nicely put it) to be avoided by sensible developers, it should be a big
> > friend.
> >
> 
> I suggest you read the discussion of RDF reification and RDF containers in
> the RDF Semantics WD, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
> 
> [[
> RDF provides vocabularies which are intended for use in describing
> containers and bounded collections, and a reification vocabulary to enable
> an RDF graph to describe, as well as exhibit, triples. Although these
> vocabularies have reasonably clear informally intended conventional
> meanings, we do not impose any further formal semantic conditions on them,
> so the notions of rdf-entailment and rdf-interpretation apply to them
> without further change. They are discussed here in order to
> explain both the
> intuitive meanings intended, and also to note the intuitive consequences
> which are not supported by the formal model theory.
> ]]
> 
> The RDF Semantics politely gives the reification vocabulary no formal
> meaning -- it is in RDF for 'legacy' purposes, but doesn't add anything to
> RDF. In short -- forget it, don't even try. It has no meaning.
> 
> RDF containers are the most B.A.D. part of RDF (IMHO), and likewise RDF
> containers are not given a formal meaning in the RDF Semantics.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
> 


-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org> , an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> 

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>