Re: Against the notion of reification well-formed graph (i.e., atomicity)

On 1/22/24 17:48, Thomas Lörtsch wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 22. Jan 2024, at 21:23, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/22/24 15:07, Thomas Lörtsch wrote:
>>> I’m not trying to be formal here...
>>>> On 22. Jan 2024, at 20:46, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> This expands (using the base expansion) to something like:
>>>>
>>>> :1w rdf:type rdf:Statement .
>>>> :1w rdf:subject :bill-clinton .
>>>> :1w rdf:predicate :related-to .
>>>> :1w rdf:oject :hillary-rodham .
>>>> :1w :starts 1975 .
>>>> :1w rdf:type rdf:Statement .
>>>> :1w rdf:subject :42nd-potus .
>>>> :1w rdf:predicate  :husband .
>>>> :1w rdf:oject :1st-female-NY-senator .
>>>> :1w :starts 1975 .
>>>>
>>>> which looks *very* weird to me.  I am not aware of any use of RDF reification that depends on the ability to have multiple subject, predicates, or objects.
>>> IMO that’s not weird at all. Reification is referentially transparent, so why shouldn’t it be possible to add other IRIs that refer to the same entity?
>>
>> But there is nothing saying that they do refer to the same entity.
> 
> How so? Assuming that with "they" you mean the IRIs refering to subject, predicate and object. >
>> And in one case - :related-to and :husband - they do not refer to the same entity in the real world, not that this difference is germane.
> 
> … :bill-clinton and :42nd-potus both refer to the same person. Same for :hillary-rodham and :1st-female-NY-senator. And :husband and :related-to are close enough in intuitive meaning to count as a valid example to make a case. So the terms in object position of the respective relations all co-refer to the same entities.
> 
> What is the thrust of your comment?
> 
>> [...]
>>> Thomas

:related-to and :husband are actually *very* different.  There is no way that 
anyone should conflate the two relationships.

That :bill-clinton and :42nd-potus can be considered to refer to the same 
person is simply an accident of some people's reality.  If an RDF graph does 
not include information that they are one and the same, then no action should 
be taken based on this intrusion of non-universal reality.

In any case, I've always viewed any reification that has multiple subjects, 
predicates, or objects as very unusual.

peter

Received on Monday, 22 January 2024 23:27:26 UTC