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

Re: Reification

From: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:23:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200104091923.PAA13934@pantheon-po01.its.yale.edu>
To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org

   [me]
   > In my opinion, this is an extremely messy way to approach what is
   > basically a simple problem.  

   [Jos DeRoo]
   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).
   We certainly can feed resolution-based logic/proof engines that way.

   [Pierre-Antoine Champin]
   My understanding is that Triples do have the same "power" as the outer
   parenthesis, while reification only has the "power" of inner parenthesis.

   [Pat Hayes]
   That is a contradiction. What do you mean by 'non-opaque' quoting?

I confess that I am as bewildered as Pat is about exactly what
sort of quotation reification is, or what the difference is between
inner and outer parentheses.  It sounds as if reification isn't
quotation at all; the formulas are right there as if unquoted, but
they are protected by a powerful shield that has the "power" to block
"malignant" attempts to use reified formulas, while allowing through the
"benign" attempts to use them.  I know this sounds a bit sarcastic,
but I really don't get it.

Perhaps reification is just the ability to mark certain subexpressions
as exempt from the usual conjunction flattening.  If so, why not just
declare *all* subexpressions exempt and forget reification?

                                             -- Drew McDermott
Received on Monday, 9 April 2001 15:23:46 GMT

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