Re: Reification as nesting

----- Original Message -----
From: "Drew McDermott" <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
To: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: Reification as nesting


>
>    [Pat Hayes]
>    ....I rather liked "nesting", which is
>    fairly free of mathematical/logical/linguistic baggage.
>
> My vote would be for "nesting" also.
>
>    There are two substantive things that nesting needs to be able to do.
>    First, it must provide a way to distinguish triples from assertions.
>    Some triples may be asserted, but the triples in a nesting aren't (at
>    least, not directly; something else might be able to infer them, or
>    something.).
>
> I've thought about this, following Jonathan Borden's proposals, and
> decided that it's a nonissue.  An expression, or set of triples, is
> asserted if someone asserts it (e.g., includes it at the top level of
> their web page).

Absolutely!

Or, in fact, relatively.  The "asserted" is not an absolute thing, it is
always
"asserted by" something.  A document parses to a top level set of triples.
That is all an RDF document parses to.  An N3 document parses to a
top level set of triples where some of the subject or object of those
triples
can themselves be sets of triples.

The top level is identified by the syntax and provided by the parser. You
don't have to look for things which are not referred to.  You can have
a reference in a lower subexpression to the topmost expression/formula/nest.

The topmost nest  is asserted by something in as much as someone has
indicated that the contents of the document are asserted by something.

Tim

Received on Thursday, 7 June 2001 23:12:38 UTC