- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:18:43 -0500
- To: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@home.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>[Dickinson, Ian J] > >> From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com] >> > I'm still a bit confused. >> > >> > There are a number of things that you could be asking for: >> > >> > 1/ The ability to associate information with assertions. (In >> > RDF terms >> > this would probably be using a statement as the subject of another >> > statement, which can't be done in RDF.) What you would be >> > trying to do >> > below would be to restrict the kinds of information that can be >> > associated with a particular assertion. This can't be >> > done in DAML+OIL >> > because assertions cannot have associated information. >> >> I can see a role for things in category 1/. A simple example, common in >> many knowledge bases, would be to say "this assertion is 50% likely to be >> true", or "this assertion holds under the following preconditions". >> Separate from the logical properties of the assertion**, it might be nice >> just to be able to record the provenance of an assertion for auditing or >> explanation purposes > >Well, the assertion is a triple so once you reify it you can association >information with it by making assertions about the reified statement. Isn't >that precisely what reification is for? Ive been wondering what reification was for. Tell me, how does saying something about a reified statement tell one anything about the (unreified) statement? Pat Hayes -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 16:18:45 UTC