- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 13:22:44 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, nathan@webr3.org, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
On May 28, 2012, at 8:15 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > > On 05/28/2012 01:41 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: >> Hi Nathan, >> >> On 28 May 2012, at 17:02, Nathan wrote: >>> Generally we see an RDF Graph as a Set of Statements, and the meaning of that is the conjunction of all the Statements in the Graph; and where each Graph entails its powerset. >> Yes. >> >>> However, it seems like there is an unwritten assumption in the community, that the meaning of a Node within a Graph is the conjunction of all the statements made where that node is in the subject or object position. >> Nodes in an RDF graph don't have meaning. > > I beg to differ! > > peter Phrases involving the word "meaning" are very slippery, and y'all may have noticed that the semantics avoids that word like the plague. What is true is that a node, alone, asserts no facts, cannot be said to be true or false, expresses no propositions. Whereas a triple or a graph does all these things. I think also that we all, even Peter, agree that Nathans' idea, that a node represents a conjunction of statements, is wrong. Pat > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2012 18:23:18 UTC