- From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 00:28:03 +0100
- To: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>, "RDF Interest (E-mail)" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 04:16 PM 9/19/00 +0100, McBride, Brian wrote: > > > > [A] --P-------------> [B] > > > > [S] --rdf:type------> [rdf:Statement] > > > > [S] --rdf:property--> [P] > > > > > > > > ? Here, S may or may not be a reification of [A] --P--> > > [B]. But from its > > > > type, it clearly represents _some_ reified statement. > > > > > >Seems to me that would represent the reification of all arcs > > labeled with "P". > > > > Reasonable. Or, more precisely, an incomplete reification of > > all arcs > > labelled "P". > >Which would imply that if I added an attributedTo with value >"Graham" I would be saying that "Graham" made all statements >with property P. I don't think thats such a good idea. Hmmm... would it be universal quantification as you suggest, or merely existential? I think the reasonable interpretation *in this case* would be "Graham made _some_ statement with property P", which I think is quite a reasonable idea. The fact that R _partially_ reifies some S cannot be taken to imply that a statement about R can be said to apply to ALL S that R partially reifies. Or, for a statement about R to be meaningful, maybe R must be a complete reification? #g ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2000 19:33:56 UTC