Giving up the Business

[[[
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