- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 16:04:42 -0600
- To: Graham Klyne <gk-lists@dial.pipex.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>At 12:50 PM 12/4/00 -0600, pat hayes wrote: >>Tim Berners-Lee *seems* to be saying that negation can be defined >>in RDF by reification. > >I haven't had the benefit of direct conversation with TimBL on this >topic, but based on his design issues "toolbox" paper I *think* he >is claiming that negation can be defined using reification *and* >introducing some new externally-defined concept; i.e. that base RDF >alone is not sufficient. Which is what I understand you to be >saying. Ah. OK, I will try again to figure out what is being said. However, I rather fail to see what, in this case, the purpose of reification is; since if one has a separate ability to introduce an externally-defined concept, then what additional functionality does the reification provide? I understood that the central role of reification in RDF arose from a perception that such importation of external concepts was going to be done by the use of reification itself: that reification provided some kind of general-purpose mechanism for semantic extensibility. If this is not the case, there seems to be little reason to have it in the language (?). Pat Hayes --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 8 December 2000 17:03:49 UTC