[topicmapmail] Nailing the TM vs. RDF debate

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Peter P. Jones
|
| Thanks Lars, I've already read that paper.

Sorry, I didn't know. :)

| 1) I've decided the RDF reification mechanism for statements is a
| total non-starter.

I agree, and so, it seems, do many RDF people.

| 2) Without an effective reification mechanism proper scoping of
| assertions just won't work, because there will be no proper group
| boundary (on sets of assertions) within which the action of
| assigning scopes is deemed to apply to the other assertions in a
| group.

Agreed.

| 3) TM reification also provides a splendid mechanism of indirection
| between subject addresses and assertions making maintenance that bit
| easier.

Also agreed.
 
| So, to summarise, imho RDF is presently lacking, and syntaxes that
| do the above properly (e.g. TMs) will do nicely thank you.

Well, the reason I pointed you to the paper is that I think there are
more issues to consider than just how reification and qualification
(scoping) are handled. If you don't want to consider them that's of
course up to you, but I don't think you can "nail the debate" in a
real way if you only consider that one issue.

That just be me misunderstanding what you meant, though.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >