- From: Nikita Ogievetsky <nogievet@cogx.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 08:37:27 -0800
- To: "Peter Crowther" <peter.crowther@networkinference.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Peter Crowther:
> > From: Nikita Ogievetsky [mailto:nogievet@cogx.com]
> [...]
> > RuleML, Jess and SWI-Prolog seam to introduce their own semantics on the
> top of RDF.
>
> Not surprising; RDF merely allows one to assert a set of triples. Rules
are
> not a part of RDF.
>
> > I was seeking for ways to express this rather basic fact using bare
> RDF(S)/DAML syntax.
>
> There's no way of expressing this in RDF, in RDFS or in DAML; it requires
> the ability to use variables. Variables are not part of any of the three
> representations.
>
However, there is one mysterious notion that arguably does belong in all
three: reification.
If one can say in RDF:
Morning is beautiful
Nikita says that {Morning is beautiful}
{Nikita says that {Morning is beautiful}} on November 12, 2001; in New York
Then why one should not be able to say:
Name of my brother's daughter is Ksenia
{brother's daughter} relation is called niece
In human world this kind of ... reification? generalization? happens very
often.
Especially when talking about relationships between relatives.
We reify statements in order to be able to talk about them.
But why only statements can be reified?
Thanks,
--Nikita.
Received on Monday, 12 November 2001 08:34:24 UTC