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

Re: summary of reification?

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:14:41 -0600
Message-Id: <p0510145cb8886581061e@[65.212.118.208]>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>At 20:08 06/02/2002 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>     <ex:subj> <ex:prop> <ex:obj> .
>>entails
>>     _:r <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> .
>>     _:r <rdf:subject> <ex:subj> .
>>     _:r <rdf:predicate> <ex:prop> .
>>     _:r <rdf:object> <ex:obj> .
>>?
>>
>>What you say above suggests no such entailment.
>>I think that's fine, but want to be clear.
>
>In a previous life, bc (before core), when thinking of the M&S 
>formal model where it states in:
>
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#162
>
>[[
>   (P162) There is a set called Statements, each element of which is 
>a triple of the form
>
>(P163) {pred, sub, obj}
>]]
>
>that this said that all statements (not statings, this is the 
>statements view) just exist, which is I think, equivalent to 
>anything (and nothing) entails:
>
>   _:s <rdf:type> <rdf:Statment> .
>   _:s <rdf:subject> <subject> .
>   _:s <rdf:predicate> <predicate> .
>   _:s <rdf:object>    <object> .
>
>for any subject, predicate and object.
>
>So I suggest that if we decide that:
>
>   <s1> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statment> .
>   <s1> <rdf:subject> <subject> .
>   <s1> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> .
>   <s1> <rdf:object>    <object> .
>
>   <s2> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statment> .
>   <s2> <rdf:subject> <subject> .
>   <s2> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> .
>   <s2> <rdf:object>    <object> .
>
>   <s1> <prop> <value> .
>
>entails
>
>   <s2> <prop> <value> .
>
>then to be consistent we must also decide that anything (and nothing) entails:
>
>   _:s <rdf:type> <rdf:Statment> .
>   _:s <rdf:subject> <subject> .
>   _:s <rdf:predicate> <predicate> .
>   _:s <rdf:object>    <object> .
>
>for any subject, predicate and object.

Well, yeh. If you are talking about the abstractions, then they 
presumably exist in Plato's heaven. And if that is where they are, 
then they are *all* there. In MT terms, every interpretation should 
have every possible triple in its universe of discourse, even the 
ones that nobody has invented the URIs for yet. (Actually, to be 
fair, it really only needs to have all the triples that can be 
written using the vocabulary of the interpretation, which doesn't 
sound quite so crazy.)

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 Thursday, 7 February 2002 12:14:02 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:07 EDT