- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:03:10 -0600
- To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> > Let me recast this then: >> >> We have to decide on Dan Brickley's equality test. Does >> >> > <stmt1> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> . >> > <stmt1> <rdf:subject> <subject> . >> > <stmt1> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> . >> > <stmt1> <rdf:object> <object> . >> > >> > <stmt2> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> . >> > <stmt2> <rdf:subject> <subject> . >> > <stmt2> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> . >> > <stmt2> <rdf:object> <object> . >> > >> > <stmt1> <property> <foo> . >> > >> > entail: >> > >> > <stmt2> <property> <foo> . > >it of course all depends on the theory of RDF reification >if we want to go the way that a statement is a functional >property of a triple, then the answer to your question is YES ? I don't see how that follows. There can be two triples here, and then there would be two statements even if that was a functional property. There isnt, in general, any way to infer that because two things have a similar description that they must therefore be the same thing. The only way to do that is to assume that the description is a *definition* of the thing. Where do we get a licence to treat a reification as a definition? Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 20:02:38 UTC