Re: Why Option 1

The problem is that in Option 1 it is easy to create Franken-reifications, 
i.e., a reification with multiple subjects, predicates. or objects.  In Option 
2 it is also *possible* to create Franken-reifications, but it is not possible 
if there is no explicit use of the RDF reification vocabulary.

peter


On 2/15/24 10:57, Franconi Enrico wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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 16:00:39 UTC