W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > April 2001

Re: Reification

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 22:42:18 +0100
To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-Id: <OFB274CCAD.88CAD864-ON41256A26.007616F8@bayer-ag.com>

> > > [Drew]
> > > In my opinion, this is an extremely messy way to approach what is
> > > basically a simple problem.  At any point in this downward spiral we
> > > can jump ship and switch to a non-RDF language.  Indeed, the only
> > > reason to stick with an RDF language inside the quotes is to fool
> > > ourselves into thinking we haven't left RDF; it's RDF outside the
> > > quotes and RDF inside.  But the stuff inside the quotes requires all
> > > sorts of machinery that we didn't need outside them, so we really are
> > > fooling ourselves.
> >
> >Pop-up an RDF node as/into an RDF graph *in place* (somewhat by-value).
> >Its content is not asserted, only quoted in a *non-opaque* way (as RDF).
> That is a contradiction. What do you mean by 'non-opaque' quoting?

the *structure* (elements and relationships) inside the ~quoting~ is
engine interpretable (non-opaque, transparent) e.g. an N3 context
how would you call that (as a verb)?

> >We certainly can feed resolution-based logic/proof engines that way.
> Not while retaining consistency you can't. In a sense, of course, you
> can input any string of characters you like into any engine you like,
> and *something* will happen. Not a very useful sense, though.

that *structure* is a *logical form* and not just *something*
(otherwise we have of course "garbage in, garbage out")

Jos De Roo, AGFA

ps you seem to have some interesting points about negation, but I have
   to re-read them (as I was close to the belief that open-world-negation
   was impossible)
Received on Friday, 6 April 2001 16:42:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:34 UTC