- From: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:25:48 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
[Sandro Hawke]
Where in the current definition of
RDF does it say that you cannot describe (mention) a triple without
asserting (using) it?
Section 5 of the usual reference:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/
A graph can be represented as a set of triples, with all context
information about where a triple came from discarded.
Of course, I am overlooking the fact that Sandro uses the words "describe
(mention)" to paraphrase the claim of mine that he is disagreeing
with. I wouldn't use those words. The obvious representation of (if
p q) doesn't "describe" or "mention" the representation of p; it just
*includes* it. So what Section 5 implies is that a triple cannot be a
part of something you assert without being asserted.
If Sandro really does mean "describe," then I have no opinion on the
question. In normal parlance it is certainly true that you can
describe a statement without asserting it, but reification as used in
the RDF community is not description in the usual sense, because there
are contexts in which "de-reification" is automatic, so in those
contexts to describe something *is* to assert it. (I'm thinking of
contexts like this: Normally asserting a disjunction does not assert
the disjuncts, so they must remain merely described. But if I assert
a disjunction with just one disjunct, I'm asserting the thing
described.)
-- Drew McDermott
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2001 11:25:54 UTC