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

Re: reification test case

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:09:25 -0600
Message-Id: <p05101414b884e0587df9@[65.212.118.208]>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On 2002-02-04 18:50, "ext Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org> wrote:
>
>>  On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>>
>>>  On 2002-02-04 17:23, "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 07:12, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>>>>  My vote: no.
>>>>
>>>>  I vote yes.
>>>>
>>>>  This is what "triple" means, after all, no?
>>>>  if x=xx, y=yy, z=zz, then (x,y,z)=(xx,yy,zz), no?
>>>
>>>  But a bNode of type rdf:Statement is not a triple, it
>>>  is the reification of a triple to which can be added
>>>  additional knowledge such as authority, source, scope,
>>>  etc.
>>
>>  shall we say it is a 'description of' a triple? (avoiding the
>>  term 'reification' wherever possible strikes me as a useful strategy,
>>  at least while we're discussing rdf:Statement...)
>>
>>  compare this to a 'description of' a Book, or a person, or any other type
>>  of thing whose instances might be described using bNodes in an RDF graph.
>>  In each such case the properties we attach to the bNode correspond to
>>  properties of the specific individual thing (some book, some person, some
>>  triple...) described.
>
>OK. I see your point.
>
>>>  Whether two reification bNodes describe the same triple
>>>  does not necessarily mean that other properties ascribed
>>>  to each of those bNodes individually apply to all bNodes
>>>  reifying the same triple.
>>
>>  Trying this again swapping 'triple' for 'person':
>>
>>  whether two [reification] bNodes describe the same Person
>>  does not necessarily mean that other propeties ascribed
>>  to each of those bNodes individually apply to all bNodes
>>  [reifying/describing] the same person.
>>
>>  I'm not sure this works.
>
>Right. I agree that both bNodes refer to the same triple,

Hey, don't give in so easily. I don't see that we have any reason to 
assume that they do refer to the same anything. The things they refer 
to have some properties in common, is all we can say. They might have 
other properties that differ, however, eg maybe one was written on 
Tuesday in Boston and the other was written on Friday in Orlando.

Some properties must be shared, since those follow from the ones we 
know are the same. They have the same truthvalue, in particular, so 
they entail the same things; and they take up the same amount of 
storage space. But that's about all.

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 20:08:54 EST

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