- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:49:19 +0100
- To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> It was for this, if for nothing else, that I wanted us to have a
> model theory.
> Please, please, lets try to stick with the concepts we have a formal
> mathematical definition for in the model theory. We have nodes
> and arcs and
> labels. What does reification mean in those terms?
>
It's just triples, (i.e. nodes, arcs and labels).
We can reify an arc (A) in the graph:
- it's reification is a node
- that node has four arcs leaving it
- one, labelled <rdf:subject>, pointing to the source of A,
- another labelled <rdf:object>, pointing to the pointy end of A,
- another, labelled <rdf:type> pointing to <rdf:Statement>,
- and the last one labelled <rdf:predicate> pointing to a node with the
same label as the label of A.
That's it, there is no more.
================
It's like praying: you open your mouth and you say things. Descriptions of
praying that go further than that open up more questions than answers.
The single question of "why?" is more addressable than any more
philosophical issues.
Perhaps I miss the point about reification, just as some would say that I
miss the point about praying ...
I have found this thread unedifying :(.
My vote seems to go for no Model Theory concerning reification; it's a
schema thing.
Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2001 07:49:30 UTC