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@[]>
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.
>>  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 

>  >> 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?

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 


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 16:40:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:38:23 UTC