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

Re: summary of reification semantics issues (material for discussion).

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:39:41 -0800
Message-ID: <3E70C25D.8080302@robustai.net>
To: www-rdf-comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>


You say:
One objection to the de re interpretation is that it does not allow
for the adequate representation of propositional attitudes such as
belief. This is controversial (see the discussion of the Russellian
theory in http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prop-attitude-reports/) ,
but in any case there is ample experience which suggests that the de
dicto interpretation would produce other problems with the
representation of such ideas, and that an fully adequate
representation of propositional attitudes is unobtainable using
reification alone.

The only problem I know of for the de re interpertation of the 
reification syntax is that you can't substitute equivalents.  It seems 
to me that the solution of that would be to come up with a property for 
equating URIRefs that would exclude substitutions into reification 
triples.  In other words, why throw out propositional attitudes, why not 
just fix the semantics of equivalence ? If it is too late to fix 
 dmal:equivalentTo, then invent a OWL property that would exclude 
sustititions in reifications.  

What (if any)  are the other problems with propositional attitudes 
exclusive of this one?

Seth Russell
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2003 12:40:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:20 UTC