W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Identity of things (was: Re: reification test case)

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:03:10 -0600
Message-Id: <p05101413b884df0c304d@[65.212.118.208]>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>  > Let me recast this then:
>>
>>  We have to decide on Dan Brickley's equality test.  Does
>>
>>  >  <stmt1> <rdf:type>      <rdf:Statement> .
>>  >  <stmt1> <rdf:subject>   <subject> .
>>  >  <stmt1> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> .
>>  >  <stmt1> <rdf:object>    <object> .
>>  >
>>  >  <stmt2> <rdf:type>      <rdf:Statement> .
>>  >  <stmt2> <rdf:subject>   <subject> .
>>  >  <stmt2> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> .
>>  >  <stmt2> <rdf:object>    <object> .
>>  >
>>  >  <stmt1> <property>      <foo> .
>>  >
>>  >  entail:
>>  >
>>  >  <stmt2> <property>      <foo> .
>
>it of course all depends on the theory of RDF reification
>if we want to go the way that a statement is a functional
>property of a triple, then the answer to your question is YES

? I don't see how that follows. There can be two triples here, and 
then there would be two statements even if that was a functional 
property.

There isnt, in general, any way to infer that because two things have 
a similar description that they must therefore be the same thing. The 
only way to do that is to assume that the description is a 
*definition* of the thing. Where do we get a licence to treat a 
reification as a definition?

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 20:02:38 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:04 EDT