Re: Why Option 1



> On 15 Feb 2024, at 16:42, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Option 2 does not have this problem.

I don’t see the problem and I don’t see how option 2 would disallow such statements.
—e.

> peter
> 
> 
> On 2/15/24 10:35, Thomas Lörtsch wrote:
>>> On 15. Feb 2024, at 16:24, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 15 Feb 2024, at 16:11, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The only real problem I see with option 1 is that it is easy to create Franken-reifications.   For example
>>>> << :e | :s :p :o >> :x :y .
>>>> << :e | :s1 :p1 :o1 >> :x :y .
>>> 
>>> To me, this should be possible:
>>> << :w3 | :bill-clinton :related-to :hillary-rodham >> :starts 1975 .
>>> << :w3 | :1st-female-NY-senator :wife :42nd-potus >> :starts 1975 .
>>> Indeed, well-formedness in option 2 allows for that.
>> It would help to be more precise. I guess what you, Enrico, refer to is the issue of co-denotation. That should be possible as RDF standard reification is referentially transparent and talks about the meaning of a statement, not its syntactic form.
>> I intuitively understood Peter as refering to two reifications that in common understanding don’t share a common meaning, e.g.
>> << :e | :weather :is :good >> :x :y .
>> << :e | :jeans :are :blue >> :x :y .
>> Is this distinctin between co-denoting and not co-denoting reifications the non-trivial problem that Peter refers to? In any case it’s good to know that option 2 has the same problem ;-) And as option 3 is said to be semantically equivalent to option 2 we might just conclude that every proposal has to deal with this problem one way or the other...
>> Thomas
>>> PS: this is not an endorsement of option 1, which is my least favourite option.
>>> 
>>> cheers
>>> —e.

Received on Thursday, 15 February 2024 15:57:53 UTC