- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 23:31:32 -0500
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>, Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
pat hayes wrote: [...] > >Do you not see the usefulness of attribution of RDF statements? Do you not > >see the usefulness of reification for this purpose? > > As far as I understand what is meant by 'reification' in this > context, I see only a very limited utility, basically things like > tagging a string/expression with information about its source, > time-stamping and so on. Most of the proposed uses of reification in > the RDF literature seem to me to be based on confusion, and many of > them - most notably, the idea that propositional structure and > quantification can be provided by reification - are just nonsense. I think the idea of building quantification and negation out of reification is mostly due to me; I've convinced precious few that it's workable, let alone interesting; I have doubts of my own. I did provoke TimBL to code it up, but I'm not at all sure that this implementation is much more than nonsense... I thought I had the last few design bugs worked out, but I can't seem to write it down, so I'm still suspicious. I have tried to tone down my enthusiasm for this idea in previous messages to this list... So while this might be the most noteably nonsensical idea related to RDF reification, please don't let it color your views of more mundane and useful uses of RDF reification for auditing etc. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2001 00:31:41 UTC