W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2001

Re: closing semantic issues

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 18:46:13 -0600
Message-Id: <p0510103fb80dde0a6beb@[]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>  > True, and I wish it did address reification. For reasons that are
>>  still opaque to me, the treatment of reification that I originally
>>  offered was rejected by the WG, but until someone can tell me *what*
>>  was wrong with it, I am somewhat at a loss as to how to proceed.
>I have told you several times now (including ftf on the
>walk to the bar in California), but I guess I'll say it once more:

You told me that I had it wrong, but you didn't tell me what was right :-)

>In your model theory, the subject of the sentence
>"Mary hit the ball" is a word starting with the letter "M".
>In RDF-as-deployed, the subject of that sentence is a girl.
>Slightly more precisely, given
>	<Mary> <hit> <aBall>.
>its reified form includes
>	_:statement rdf:subject <Mary>.
>note that the reified form doesn't quote <Mary>.

Well, OK, but that is completely at odds with everything the M&S says 
about reification. A reified statement is supposed to be a 
reification *of a statement*, ie of a triple, right? In your account 
here, the reification of the triple

<mary> <hit> <ball> .

has exactly the same content and meaning as the original triple. If 
this is the case, what is the point of using reification at all? All 
one has done is to provide another way to write the same thing.

[Later. Oh, I see what the answer might be: same proposition, but not 
same assertion. Reification here isn't thought of as a metalevel 
assertion, but rather as a way of sidestepping assertion. The point 
being that the unreified triple is asserted in any graph in which it 
occurs, but the reification is not asserted. Is that the idea?]

Tell you what, rather than get into an immediate debate about this, I 
will try to write a short summary of various views on what 
reification  means, which that will give us something to refer to. (I 
now have four of them. ) I was planning to do this last week but got 


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2001 19:46:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:06 UTC