W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2001

Re: closing semantic issues

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 12:24:23 -0600
Message-ID: <3BE6D957.9791E9F1@w3.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Pat Hayes wrote:
> 
> >I maintain that the issues raised in #rdf-formal-sematics are not adequately
> >addressed in the model theory, and that this issue should not be closed.
> >
> >In particular, the current model theory does not address reification at
> >all, so there is no sense that it can be used to close an issue whose
> >summary asks:
> >       What is the relationships between a statement and its reification.
> 
> True, and I wish it did address reification. For reasons that are
> still opaque to me, the treatment of reification that I originally
> offered was rejected by the WG, but until someone can tell me *what*
> was wrong with it, I am somewhat at a loss as to how to proceed.

I have told you several times now (including ftf on the
walk to the bar in California), but I guess I'll say it once more:

In your model theory, the subject of the sentence
"Mary hit the ball" is a word starting with the letter "M".
In RDF-as-deployed, the subject of that sentence is a girl.

Slightly more precisely, given
	<Mary> <hit> <aBall>.
its reified form includes
	_:statement rdf:subject <Mary>.

note that the reified form doesn't quote <Mary>.

More precisely, see

  use/mention and reification: rdf:predicate/subject/object [was:
                  RDF Abstract Syntax...] Dan Connolly (Sat, May 26
2001) 
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001May/0359.html


> >The current model theory does address collections, but its treatment of
> >collections leaves much to be desired.
> 
> I beg to differ on a point of order. The MT treatment of rdf:Bag is I
> believe in very close conformity to the treatment described
> (informally but thoroughly) in the M&S. As you say:
> 
> >  In particular, rdf:Bag is not a bag
> >at all, but instead is much more like a sequence.
> 
> Right, and that is exactly how the M&S so describes it, by insisting
> that :_1, :_2 and so on apply to *all* containers. It would be easy
> to change the MT to describe a different notion than rdf:Bag, but
> then it would not in fact describe RDF.

Upon further consideration, I disagree (see the message
I sent earlier today).


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 5 November 2001 13:24:32 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:42:30 EDT