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

Re: reification test case

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 13:33:32 -0800
Message-ID: <00f601c1adc3$984262c0$657ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
From: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>

> >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.


> Well, but who needs to? There are much simpler ways of *referring to*
> a statement.

In RDF, .....How?

>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.

I agree there is no way to refer to a particular instance of a triple
occuring whever it may occur in the universe.  But that is not really
necessery since we can be as particular as we want by qualifying the node
with other predicates like [d:author Pat] or if that is not sufficiently
particular [dc:authorPat; containedIn Doc1].

Seth Russell
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 16:40:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:37 UTC