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

Re: No model theory for reification?

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 13:24:03 +0200
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8770CF3.C4FE%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-01-24 19:06, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote:

> The trouble with this kind of approach (not to reification in
> particular, but more generally) is that if there is no way in the
> language to state a distinction, and if the same constructs are used
> to say different kinds of things, then confusion will be inevitable.

This was what motivated my suggestion of two new classes rdf:Assertion
and rdf:Quotation, both rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Statement, to provide a
means of distinction for the purpose of intepretation.

> ... 
> Surely it is better to provide a way to state or somehow indicate the
> distinction, and allow both kinds of things to be said more clearly.

That was my take.

> If you want strict backward compatibility and don't like new
> syntactic conventions, then make the one you like best be the
> unmarked case and mark the other one.

Right. rdf:Assertion is the unmarked case, implied by actual
property arcs from subject nodes to object nodes, and rdf:Quotation
is available as an alternate to rdf:Statement providing for
the slightly different interpretation of "utterance" rather
than statement.

This approach seems backwards compatable with (most) current
usage while allowing those who want the quotation distinction
to achieve it explicitly.


Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Friday, 25 January 2002 06:23:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:54 UTC