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

Re: reification test case

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:44:23 -0800
Message-ID: <00fa01c1af46$ad9cf200$657ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

> > > > <rdf:description>
> > > > <rdf:type>:Statement</rdf:type>
> > > > <rdf:subject>:Gore</rdf:subject>
> > > > <rdf:predicate>:wonThe</rdf:predicate>
> > > [ <rdf:object>:election</rdf:object> ]
> > > > <log:truthValue>False</log:truthValue>
> > > > </rdf:description>
> > > >
> > > > which holds for all such statings.
> > > >
> > > > But I could also write:
> > > >
> > > > <rdf:description>
> > > > <rdf:type>:Statement</rdf:type>
> > > > <rdf:subject>:Gore</rdf:subject>
> > > > <rdf:predicate>:wonThe</rdf:predicate>
> > > > <dc:author>:Seth</dc:author>
> > > > <log:truthValue>False</log:truthValue>
> > > > </rdf:description>
> > > >
> > > > which holds for a smaller collection of statings.
> > >
> No, but I certainly didn't see anything to indicate that the first is
about
> a statement and the second about a stating.

The first refers to all statings with those three properties which are
False.   The second refers to a subset of those which were authored by me
which are False. In other words a reification node with not other
qualifications is as close to refering to the ideal triple as we need to
come.

With your (fix?) you would need to provide some meaning for case 2 above -
or make it be a syntax error.  Can you do that?   I think that was one of
Pat's test questions.

> > Do the following two nodes refer to the same thing or "have equivalent
> > status as far as RDF is concerned" ?
> >
> > [a :Book; title "Knowledge Representation"; dc:author "John F. Sowa"]
> > [a :Book; title "Knowledge Representation"; dc:author "John F. Sowa";
> > :ownedBy "Seth Russell" ; :sittingOn :MyDesk]
>
> They don't necessarily refer to the same thing, but they certainly have
the
> same status.

Well, I have no idea what you mean by 'status'.

>RDF knows nothing about :ownedBy or :sittingOn that causes
> the first resource to have to refer to a book (as in a title) and the
> second to have to refer to a book (as in a physical collection of paper
> sheets bound together).  Do you think that it has?

No.  RDF doesn't know anything about anything except  'rdf:type' and the
properties we are arguing about.  Obviously we have to publish a schema to
give meaning to our terms.  I don't see your point.

>Do you think that this
> situation is any different from the situation with the two resources
> earlier in this message?

No .. and that was my point.

Seth Russell
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 14:48:05 GMT

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