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

RE: Reification

From: Danny Ayers <danny@panlanka.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 23:09:32 +0600
To: "David Allsopp" <dallsopp@signal.dera.gov.uk>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EBEPLGMHCDOJJJPCFHEFAEDNDBAA.danny@panlanka.net>
<- IANAL*, but I think it's because an arbitrary machine C, which only
<- knows 'standard' RDF, won't understand, and will not be able to process
<- the data in the way intended by A. The data then have different meanings
<- to different machines, which defeats the whole purpose of the semantic
<- web. The negation is not built-in to RDF, so it has no meaning in its
<- own right. The meaning is 'outside' the system, as in Pat Hayes'
<- "punched cards with writing on them".

Any processing is going to be going on in the machines, so why does the
meaning need to be in the RDF - just the machines. Where is the meaning in
the punched-card holes?

Ok, another line - let's say you've got this propositional stuff in place,
common to A, B and C. But machine D wants to play snooker. Do you extend the
common language to include the rules of snooker?

I can certainly see how ambiguity in the spec could cause problems, but not
lack of functionality - if I have a triple representing 'pot the red ball'
and I am machine D, I know what to do. If I am machine A, 'pot the red ball'
has no meaning to me - so what am I going to do - 'pot the black ball'????
Received on Monday, 9 April 2001 13:12:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:38 GMT