W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

Can we express propositonal attitudes twards reified statements in RDF ?

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:38:38 -0800
Message-ID: <3E4A94AE.5050608@robustai.net>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: www-rdf-comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>

The WG agreed:

     "The group overwhelmingly, unanimously supports that
      we should, in  principle, focus on addressing the
      provenance use-case." [1]

You said:

        "Well, its (literally) impossible to give a coherent interpretation
         of reification which satisfies everyone. We had to choose one,
          and we chose the one that seemed to support the existing use
          cases that people felt strongly about. "  [2]

So can I assume that the subsequent choices of the WG did in fact 
support the provenance use-case?  

Then you say:

      "In the present set-up, the reified triple is required to mean
        what it would mean if you de-reified it. It refers to the 
        not to the surface syntax. "[3]

In the light of the above wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the 
reified node refers to the stating of the proposition, and not the 
proposition itself ?

Now we all know that we cannot  substitute in a referentially opaque 
context [4].  

I don't follow the reasoning that gets us from there to your statement:

    "In a nutshell, :thinks isn't a relationship between
      an agent and an RDF reification, so it can't be an RDF property. "[5]

Could you elaborate that reasoning for me?

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0263.html
[4] http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/illisubs.html

Seth Russell
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 13:39:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:19 UTC