- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:13:28 +0100
- To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
[[[ 13:30:13 <sbp> e.g. :Sean earl:asserts [ rdf:subject :SomePage; rdf:predicate earl:passes; rdf:object :SomeCheckpoint ] . :SomePage earl:type "text/html" ! 13:30:34 <AaronSw> Which is broken. 13:30:49 <AaronSw> Heh, Miles has a good analogy: is the range of the phone a document? 13:30:53 <sbp> how so? (not that I necessarily disagree - really asking) 13:31:50 <AaronSw> Well, if I said :SomePage = :SomeOtherPage then a processor would conclude you had asserted a different statment than you actually had (SomeOtherPage earl:passes SomeCheckpoint) 13:32:35 <sbp> aw man, I hadn't thought of that 13:33:32 <sbp> I'm really starting to wonder whether or not I should quit this business and become a friggin' carpenter 13:33:39 <AaronSw> Heh! 13:33:45 <AaronSw> Or a clockmaker like PatH 13:33:45 <sbp> (from: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200108/msg00234.html) [...] 13:52:37 <sbp> Hmm... so if I said: :Sean earl:asserts _:x ! _:x rdf:subject :MyPage; rdf:predicate earl:passes; rdf:object :SomeCheckpoint ! would that solve the problem? [...] 13:54:12 <AaronSw> sbp, it would seem to, yes [...] 13:57:13 <sbp> Hang on now, from the person's POV, if they believe that :x = :y and that I have declared :x to pass some checkpoint, then they also believe that I have said that :y passes the checkpoint. However, *I* may not believe that [...] 13:59:12 <AaronSw> if lyndon says that there are more than 10 supreme court members 13:59:17 <AaronSw> and there are nine supreme court members 13:59:22 <AaronSw> does it follow that he believes 9 > 10 [...] 13:59:39 <AaronSw> i.e. (believes Lyndon '(> (cardinality U.S.-supreme-court) 10)) to (believes Lyndon '(> 9 10)) 14:00:20 <AaronSw> see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Apr/0066 14:01:20 <sbp> ooh, thanks 14:01:23 <sbp> so the answer is "no" 14:01:45 <sbp> sorry: no 14:01:47 <sbp> :-) 14:02:01 <AaronSw> heh 14:02:24 <AaronSw> the rest is commentary. now i must go and study... 14:02:41 <Seth> there are two kinds of reification ... dark and white :) 14:02:52 <Seth> rdf reification is dark 14:02:59 <Seth> point to the stid is white 14:03:39 <sbp> .google the rest is commentary. now i must go and study 14:03:39 <xena> the rest is commentary. now i must go and study: http://www.simplyjewish.com/Pages_SJ2001/SJ2001_Philosophy/SJ_Phil_phi l.html 14:03:59 <sbp> * sbp starts learning how to carve wood 14:04:43 <Seth> its simple ... you point to something and dont necessarily believe it (rdf style) or you point to something and also assert that you believe it 14:05:44 <sbp> but in the EARL case, we're reifying, and yet when you substitute in Aaron 14:05:59 <sbp> Aaron's dilemma, the thing appears to break 14:06:28 <Seth> what was the earl case ... i didnt read that far back in the dialogue 14:06:39 <AaronSw> 'When asked to teach the whole Torah while standing on one foot, Rabbi Hillel replied: "What is hateful to you do not do to others. That is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary. Now, go and study it."' 14:06:50 <sbp> the EARL case is that I assert :Sean earl:asserts [ rdf:subject :SomePage; rdf:predicate earl:passes; rdf:object :SomeCheckpoint ] . :SomePage earl:type "text/html" . 14:07:00 <sbp> and then Aaron comes along and asserts :SomePage = :SomeOtherPage . 14:07:59 <sbp> now, CWM will substitute :SomeOtherPage for :SomePage going by the rules of DAML equivalence 14:08:13 <sbp> which suggests that reification is not dark enough 14:08:26 <sbp> hence the proposal to use ! instead for the thing asserted above 14:08:45 <sbp> which would mean that one can't substitute in :SomeOtherPage 14:09:04 <sbp> which is consistent with Drew's email ]]] - http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2002-04-10.txt -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://purl.org/net/swn#> . :Sean :homepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Wednesday, 10 April 2002 10:14:35 UTC