You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is there a specific reason that section 1.2 links the term "reification" to the "Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification" W3C Recommendation from 22 February 1999? The RDF 1.1 Semantics from 2014 is the currently authoritative spec, the RDF 1.0 Primer from 2004 features an IMO very accessible introduction.
IIUC the 1999 spec doesn't differentiate between triple type and occurrence whereas the later specs do explain the difference in detail. To properly describe the differences of reification in RDF* and RDF the current spec and its direct predecessor from 2004 seem more appropriate.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This is an important observation. For RDF(etc)-star to be treated as seems to be desired, it must proceed from RDF(etc) 1.1 (or later, such as SPARQL 1.2, if it proceeds to ratification before RDF(etc)-star).
Is there a specific reason that section 1.2 links the term "reification" to the "Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification" W3C Recommendation from 22 February 1999? The RDF 1.1 Semantics from 2014 is the currently authoritative spec, the RDF 1.0 Primer from 2004 features an IMO very accessible introduction.
IIUC the 1999 spec doesn't differentiate between triple type and occurrence whereas the later specs do explain the difference in detail. To properly describe the differences of reification in RDF* and RDF the current spec and its direct predecessor from 2004 seem more appropriate.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: