W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2000

Re: unreification

From: <ssarkar@ayushnet.com>
Date: 16 Nov 2000 11:06:23 -0800
Message-ID: <20001116190623.10431.cpmta@c001.snv.cp.net>
To: seth@robustai.net
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
On Thu, 16 November 2000, Seth Russell wrote:

> 
> Bill dehOra wrote:
> 
> > Can I assume that any removal operation above has the side effect of
> > removing other statements (the four added triples)?
> 
> I don't think so.  If I say something, then you comment on my assertion, then I
> forget what I said,  your comment still exists in all its glory.    In fact
> this can of worms, you just opened, might just be the only reason that the 4
> statement method of reification might be necessary.  Otherwise we could more
> easily reify by just giving each sentence an ident:
> 
> [ident1, s, p, o]
> [ident2, Rx, reifies, ident1]
> [ident3, Rx, isA, Lie]
> 
> but then if  ident1 gets forgotten, ident3 suddenly forgets what it's all about
> (yuck).
> 
> Seth Russell

This seems to me a trick for truth value maintenance
over the whole set of sentences involved in reification.
I think that the notion of atomicity in reified
sentences should be considered and a syntax needs
to be in place.  A <start> and <stop> or <begin>
and <end> can bring atomic notions of reified
sentences in RDF just like in high level programming
languages.

--ssarkar@ayushnet.com
Received on Thursday, 16 November 2000 14:06:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:46 GMT