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

Re: Reification: proposed resolution

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:57:53 -0500
Message-ID: <3C6BDE81.2060204@mitre.org>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Brian McBride wrote:

> At 18:12 12/02/2002 -0500, Frank Manola wrote:
> [...]
>> What do you see the practical implementations of this entailment 
>> being?  Given the view of
>> <ex:subj> <ex:prop> <ex:obj>
>> as a "stating" (inscription, statement occurrence, aka "triple"), I 
>> don't see how we can logically (?) deny that the presense of this 
>> triple entails that "there exists a statement with [such and such 
>> characteristics]".
> I agree.
>>  Haven't we just said it?  Does the problem have to do with what we 
>> say instances of <rdf:Statement> are (statements or triples)?  I.e., 
>> we can't say "there exists a statement..." because it isn't one, it's 
>> a triple?
> Nah, its just that if I've got an "inferencing model", our term for an 
> implementation of a graph that implements the closure rule, I'll have 
> all these entailed reifications which are just so much junk getting in 
> the way.
>> A more practical issue, it seems to me, is that even if all the 
>> statements in your graph entail their reifications, what's the point?
> Yes.  Much better put; I think that's what was really on my mind.

Right.  My original idea was something like that even if you were 
somehow "logically compelled" to admit these entailments (by which I 
meant they would be proper if you did them, although I didn't think you 
actually had to), there wouldn't be any reason to do them.  Pat's 
comment on the "logical compulsion" aspect that "the 'world' being 
described by an RDF graph isn't required to include the graph itself" 
was further clarification.



Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 10:53:02 UTC

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