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

RE: abstract model and reification

From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 00:28:03 +0100
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000920002242.00c43c20@pop.dial.pipex.com>
To: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>, "RDF Interest (E-mail)" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 04:16 PM 9/19/00 +0100, McBride, Brian wrote:
> > > >    [A] --P-------------> [B]
> > > >    [S] --rdf:type------> [rdf:Statement]
> > > >    [S] --rdf:property--> [P]
> > > >
> > > > ?  Here, S may or may not be a reification of [A] --P-->
> > [B].  But from its
> > > > type, it clearly represents _some_ reified statement.
> > >
> > >Seems to me that would represent the reification of all arcs
> > labeled with "P".
> >
> > Reasonable.  Or, more precisely, an incomplete reification of
> > all arcs
> > labelled "P".
>
>Which would imply that if I added an attributedTo with value
>"Graham" I would be saying that "Graham" made all statements
>with property P.  I don't think thats such a good idea.

Hmmm... would it be universal quantification as you suggest, or merely 
existential?

I think the reasonable interpretation *in this case* would be "Graham made 
_some_ statement with property P", which I think is quite a reasonable idea.

The fact that R _partially_ reifies some S cannot be taken to imply that a 
statement about R can be said to apply to ALL S that R partially 
reifies.  Or, for a statement about R to be meaningful, maybe R must be a 
complete reification?

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2000 19:33:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:44 GMT