Re: What do the ontologists want

• From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
• Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 01:56:57 +0100
• To: sandro@w3.org
• Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, drew.mcdermott@yale.edu, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
• Message-Id: <OF7CE81E45.EEF3224D-ON41256A50.00045FEE@bayer-ag.com>

[...]
> For example, I might want tell some entity that if it has the triple
> <A,B,C> in its store, it should remove it.  I want to say something
> like:
>
>    there exists some triple T with a first
>    element A, a second element B, and a
>    third element C.  If you currently believe
>    T to be true, forget that fact.
>
> which I might do in triples like
>
>    <T, subject, A>
>    <T, predicate, B>
>    <T, object, C>
>    <actionRequest, Forget, T>
>
> (I'm not suggesting this kind of "actionRequest" ontology for action
> is a good approach; it's too dependent on the message context (time
> and receiver identity) for my liking, but it should work for this
> example.)
>
> So is that evil reification, or is that perfectly reasonable use of
> binary predicates?

I think it's the latter, just a use of binary predicates.

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

Received on Thursday, 17 May 2001 19:57:17 UTC