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

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

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:17:43 +0100
To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
Cc: sandro@w3.org, jborden@mediaone.net, las@olin.edu, connolly@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-Id: <OFC7053071.3BFBEB93-ON41256A62.002E458C@bayer-ag.com>

[...]
> The point is not MENTIONING a triple without using it (that you can
> do by reifying it), but that one needs to be able to USE it without
> asserting it.

you couldn't be more right
it reminds me about what you said some weeks ago
[[
  There are two issues here: using a statement (as part of some larger
  statement, typically) without asserting it, on the one hand; and
  making a statement ABOUT another statement, on the other hand.
  The latter is indeed widely called 'reification', (ie the statement
  about which something is said gets reified so that you can say
  something about it) and the RDF spec seems to mean to refer to that;
  but the reason it gives for using it refers to the first idea, which
  is a completely different notion.
]]

> For example, if I assert (not P), I am using P, not
> mentioning it - that would be (not 'P ) -  but am definitely not
> asserting it. In general, whenever one asserts a propositional
> expression, other than a conjunction, they are using its
> subexpressions without asserting them.

clear

> RDF seems to provide no way to do this. If this impression is
> mistaken, please someone disabuse me as soon as possible.

I agree with you
just one side remark
We happen to USE the RE set of statements about existentially
quantified nodes (called anonymous nodes in RDF) as not asserted
but that is maybe a rarity of a specific unifier implementation


--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2001 04:18:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:40 GMT