Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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
|
