- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 17:14:11 +0100
- To: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Seth Russell wrote:
>
> So that, while it is true that the statement itself cannot be the object of
> another statement,
That's all I was trying to say. It seems we are in part agreement.
>
> r subProperty Unreifies.
>
> Unreifies
> means "If {B represents C} and {A r B}, then {A r C}".
>
> So that in the sentence
>
> Jon says ((the sky) is red).
>
> If we represent the statement ((the sky) is red) by a RDF reification quad
> and declare that {says subProperty Unreifies}, then certainly that statement
> is the logical object of the other statement.
>
> If we cannot make logical substitutions like this in RDF, then what kinds of
> logical substitutions are permissable and which are not?
A good question. Do you have a proposal?
> How can we be
> willy-nilly about this ?
I'm not sure what you mean by willy-nilly, but I think I'm probably in
agreement with you here also. We do need a model theory to define precisely
what 'represents' means. If you've got one tucked away somewhere, I'd love
to see it. But it needs to be complete. I find dealing with incomplete
fragements of a theory hard to cope with because I can't see the whole
picture and I can't tell if its consistent.
Brian
Received on Monday, 4 June 2001 12:15:16 UTC