- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 11:29:50 +0000
- To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, "Frank Manola"<fmanola@mitre.org>
- Cc: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 11:56 08/02/2002 +0100, Jos De_Roo wrote:
>where is the inconsistency Brian???
>It's actually "good luck" that we *cannot* prove everything!!!
>
>--
>Jos
>
>ps I agree with 3
This is intuition; I'm woefully ignorant on all this logic stuff.
3 seems to imply that you need the existence of a statement in a graph to
entail the reified statement, which is what I'd expect if the reified
statement represented an *occurrence* of a statement, i.e. a stating.
If one regards statements as the sort of abstract things that the formal
part of M&S suggests to me (pps, danc and others), then to borrow a phrase
from Pat, they all exist in "platonic heaven" - no occurrence is required
to entail them.
So I find the combination of:
o a reified statement models a statement
o you need an occurence of a statement to entail its
reification
tingles my antenae.
I will now curl up into a feotal ball and await a kicking from the logicians.
Brian
Received on Friday, 8 February 2002 06:31:18 UTC