Re: What do the ontologists want

pat hayes:
>
> PS. There seems to be an implicit assumption in some of the RDF
> literature that the only two things to do with a sentence (triple)
> are to either assert it or to reify it, so any use that doesnt
> involve asserting a triple must reify it. This is just wrong. Logical
> notation is full of examples of sentences being used but not being
> asserted. The simplest is probably negation: when one writes (not P),
> P is being used (not mentioned or reified), but it is not being
> asserted: on the contrary, in fact. Now, it might be that RDF is
> incapable of making this distinction. So much the worse for RDF, if
> so.

*light goes off in head*

you are absolutely correct.

note that my use of statements in _fragment identifiers_ is _syntactically
distinct_ from statements in XML syntax.

The RDF 'model' (in the current RDF usage of the term 'model') is a set of
triples. No partition is provided that distinguishes triples that are
asserted vs. merely being used. Current RDF 'reification' is a technique
that allows a statement to be represented without being directly contained
(hence asserted) in the model.

by introduction of a distinct syntax, one that allows the formation of a
_URI reference_ that directly represents, quotes if you will, a triple, such
a triple is partitioned from the triples that are asserted (hence my thought
is that this mechanism is compatible with the current RDF abstract syntax)

What you are suggesting appears to require reworking of the RDF model. Any
suggestions on how to best do this?

Jonathan Borden
The Open Healthcare Group
http://www.openhealth.org

Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2001 19:42:21 UTC