Re: Why? Re: rdf as a base for other languages

Seth Russell wrote:

> 
> So that, while it is true that the statement itself cannot be the object of
> another statement, 

That's all I was trying to say.  It seems we are in part agreement.

> 
> r subProperty Unreifies.
> 
> Unreifies
>     means "If {B represents C} and  {A r B}, then {A r C}".
> 
> So that in the sentence
> 
>      Jon says ((the sky) is red).
> 
> If we represent the statement ((the sky) is red) by a RDF reification quad
> and declare that {says subProperty Unreifies}, then certainly that statement
> is the logical object of  the other statement.
> 
> If we cannot make logical substitutions like this in RDF, then what kinds of
> logical substitutions are permissable and which are not?  

A good question.  Do you have a proposal?

> How can we be
> willy-nilly about this ?

I'm not sure what you mean by willy-nilly, but I think I'm probably in
agreement with you here also.  We do need a model theory to define precisely
what 'represents' means.  If you've got one tucked away somewhere, I'd love
to see it.  But it needs to be complete.  I find dealing with incomplete
fragements of a theory hard to cope with because I can't see the whole
picture and I can't tell if its consistent.

Brian