Re: Statements/Stating: a proposition

"McBride, Brian" wrote:
> Oops.  Sorry Pierre-Antoine.  I did not mean to be rude.

you were not :) Don't worry...

> > > Pierre-Antoine's proposal uses a reified statement to
> > > represent both a statement and a stating.  My concern
> > > is that this can lead to contradictions.
> >
> > Yes, but *not* the Stating of the *same* Statement !
> You are right.  But fundamentally a resource is still representing
> two different things, so a contradiction is possible.
> All that is needed is a property that is true of one and not the other.

Statement and Statings are two nature of the *same* object.
So nothing is at the same time "true of one and not of the other".
Let's take your example :

> So let S be [Bush, won, the election] and RS a reified statement
> representing it.  Let S occur in http://foo.
> Let T be [RS, occursIn, http://foo] and RT a
> refied statement representing it.  T occurs in http://bar.
> If I understand you correctly:
> RT represents both the statement T and the occurrence of S
> in http://foo.  Have I got that right yet?
> Is [RT, occursIn, http://bar] true?
> It is true of the statement T, but not of the stating of S.

No offense, but that sound twisted to me :
the last sentence uses two different semantics for the property "occursIn"...

If "occursIn" applies to the Statement nature of its subject
(which is suggested by its other use, with RS as subject)
then your last triple is true.

If "occursIn" applies to the Stating nature of its subject,
then your last triple is false, and by the way the triple T is meaningless !

If "occursIn" has both semantics (applies sometimes to Statements, sometimes to Statings),
then yes, the last triple is ambiguous, but it comes from the predicate, not from the subject :)


Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the
universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
(Bill Watterson -- Calvin & Hobbes)

Received on Thursday, 21 December 2000 08:41:57 UTC