W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > February 2002

Re: reification test case

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:56:44 -0600
Message-Id: <p05101403b884a4165ebd@[65.212.118.208]>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: seth@robustai.net, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>On 2002-02-04 19:58, "ext Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net> wrote:
>
>>  If the *only* arcs on a Bnode are (rdf:type, rdf:subject, rdf:predicate,
>>  rdf:object) then I suppose that there is really only the one
>>  ~description(1)~ and all other occurrences of that ~description(1)~ **in the
>>  same document** are simply duplicates.   Just like the description "the
>>  first sentence of this email" is the same description wherever it appears
>>  and has the same denotation wherever it appears in this email.  Even though
>>  it does denote a different sentence when it appears in a different email.
>>
>>  Now if we add a 5th arc to such a Bnode (for example time, place, author,
>>  trust, etc)  then that ~description(2)~ certainly is not the same as
>>  ~description(1)~.   Just like "the first sentence of this email which begins
>>  with 'E' " is not the same description as "the first sentence of this email"
>>  nore does it denote the same sentence in this email.
>
>This was the same kind of reservation I was having about this.
>
>C.f.
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0032.html
>
>
>>
>>  Hmmm.... does the MT automatically smush Bnodes in the same graph with the
>>  same identical property arcs, even though the Bnode subject is different ?
>
>It has been suggested that because they are empty circles,
>they smush together just fine, with no aftertraces... ;-)

Hey, who said that? There is a lemma (second anonymity lemma in 
section 2 ) in the MT document, with proof (in the working draft, 
just about to appear) that says that you cannot validly smush two 
Bnodes.

>  >> If we're not going to take the implications of reification
>>>  seriously, let's just throw it out.
>>
>>  If we throw it out how are we to describe statements?
>
>Exactly.

Well, but who needs to? There are much simpler ways of *referring to* 
a statement. And in any case, does reification enable you to describe 
a particular statement? Seems to me that as currently understood, it 
only allows you to say that some statement with a particular form 
*exists*. There's no way to say 'this statement... has this form....' 
because there's no way to associate the description with the actual 
statement.

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Monday, 4 February 2002 16:40:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:41 GMT