- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:17:43 +0100
- To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: sandro@w3.org, jborden@mediaone.net, las@olin.edu, connolly@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
[...] > The point is not MENTIONING a triple without using it (that you can > do by reifying it), but that one needs to be able to USE it without > asserting it. you couldn't be more right it reminds me about what you said some weeks ago [[ There are two issues here: using a statement (as part of some larger statement, typically) without asserting it, on the one hand; and making a statement ABOUT another statement, on the other hand. The latter is indeed widely called 'reification', (ie the statement about which something is said gets reified so that you can say something about it) and the RDF spec seems to mean to refer to that; but the reason it gives for using it refers to the first idea, which is a completely different notion. ]] > For example, if I assert (not P), I am using P, not > mentioning it - that would be (not 'P ) - but am definitely not > asserting it. In general, whenever one asserts a propositional > expression, other than a conjunction, they are using its > subexpressions without asserting them. clear > RDF seems to provide no way to do this. If this impression is > mistaken, please someone disabuse me as soon as possible. I agree with you just one side remark We happen to USE the RE set of statements about existentially quantified nodes (called anonymous nodes in RDF) as not asserted but that is maybe a rarity of a specific unifier implementation -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2001 04:18:46 UTC