- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 21:50:13 -0500
- To: Wolfram Conen <conen@gmx.de>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> >Once you start to "interpret" triples with a host formalism, you may >easily get rid of reification if you interpret it as nesting. But how do you tell which reifications are to be interpreted as nesting and which are to be interpreted as reification? Because reification, if understood as being, indeed, reification, is not nesting. That was the point of my reply to Sandro: what we need are ways to use subexpressions without mentioning them and without asserting them. "Nesting" is a good word for this. > You "only" have to write useful mappings and axioms to deal with this nesting. In what language? If we had a language to write axioms and rules which could deal with this stuff, all our problems would be solved. That is where we came in. 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 Monday, 4 June 2001 22:50:18 UTC