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

Re: reification decision process intro

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 11:29:50 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, "Frank Manola"<fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 11:56 08/02/2002 +0100, Jos De_Roo wrote:

>where is the inconsistency Brian???
>It's actually "good luck" that we *cannot* prove everything!!!
>ps I agree with 3

This is intuition; I'm woefully ignorant on all this logic stuff.

3 seems to imply that you need the existence of a statement in a graph to 
entail the reified statement, which is what I'd expect if the reified 
statement represented an *occurrence* of a statement, i.e. a stating.

If one regards statements as the sort of abstract things that the formal 
part of M&S suggests to me (pps, danc and others), then to borrow a phrase 
from Pat, they all exist in "platonic heaven" - no occurrence is required 
to entail them.

So I find the combination of:

   o a reified statement models a statement
   o you need an occurence of a statement to entail its

tingles my antenae.

I will now curl up into a feotal ball and await a kicking from the logicians.

Received on Friday, 8 February 2002 06:31:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:55 UTC