- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 16:18:18 -0400
- To: aswartz@swartzfam.com
- Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
Subject: Re: A plea for peace. was: RE: DAML+OIL (March 2001) released: a correction
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 00:31:57 -0500
> pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote:
>
> > The way to fix RDF is to admit that logical content requires the use
> > of some - maybe not many, but some - nontrivial syntactic
> > constructions, in particular the use of nested expressions and
> > quantifier scoping;
>
> Isn't this already available in RDF in one form or another?
>
> > to abandon the idea that syntax is the same as,
> > or best coded using, reification;
>
> I don't believe anyone ever said syntax should be coded as reification.
> Merely that reification had a precise meaning ("I'm not saying this -- I'm
> talking about it") and that it could be used to encode logical constructs
> without necessarily bringing them into RDF Core.
[...]
I, for one, would be very interested in hearing the precise meaning of
reification, particularly reification in RDF.
Peter Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2001 16:20:08 UTC