Re: A plea for peace. was: RE: DAML+OIL (March 2001) released: a correction

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
Subject: Re: A plea for peace. was: RE: DAML+OIL (March 2001) released: a  	correction
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 00:31:57 -0500

> pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote:
> 
> > The way to fix RDF is to admit that logical content requires the use
> > of some - maybe not many, but some - nontrivial syntactic
> > constructions, in particular the use of nested expressions and
> > quantifier scoping;
> 
> Isn't this already available in RDF in one form or another?
> 
> > to abandon the idea that syntax is the same as,
> > or best coded using, reification;
> 
> I don't believe anyone ever said syntax should be coded as reification.
> Merely that reification had a precise meaning ("I'm not saying this -- I'm
> talking about it") and that it could be used to encode logical constructs
> without necessarily bringing them into RDF Core.

[...]

I, for one, would be very interested in hearing the precise meaning of
reification, particularly reification in RDF.

Peter Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research