W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > May 2001

Re: What do the ontologists want

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 18:06:34 -0500
Message-Id: <v0421010fb72a092ffa98@[]>
To: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>   [me]
>   >I made such a proposal
>   >(http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/dvm/daml/proposal.html),
>   >and am now rethinking it.  The most urgent change is to get rid of the
>   >triples idea; then most of the pressure for reification will vanish.
>   [jim hendler]
>   Let's be clear that Drew doesn't speak for all us ontologists when he
>   recommends getting rid of the triples - some of us (me included)
>   think that it is very useful to be based on RDF and triples rather
>   than inventing something new just for the sake of doing so...
>In my experience, no one ever speaks for all ontologists; in fact, the
>most I ever hope for is to speak for *one* ontologist, and I rarely
>achieve that.
>For me, "get rid of triples" has become shorthand for "get rid of the
>assumption that asserting a structure of triples asserts every triple
>in the structure."

I thought that was what you meant. I agree. In fact, I would take it 
further and say that we should get rid of the assumption that every 
triple is assertible. Some triples should be seen as fragments of 
larger structures which are not even well-formed by themselves.

>I have no objection to binary predicates; I could
>even live with all predicates being binary if it would allow me to
>speak for lots of ontologists. :)

The restriction to binary (plus unary, ie at-most-binary) predicates 
is mildly inconvenient but quite live-with-able, I agree. That's two 
ontologists on the list.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2001 19:06:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:45:37 UTC