- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 22:09:05 +0100
- To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: dallsopp@signal.dera.gov.uk, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
pat: [...] >Unfortunately that immediately makes the confusion I have been trying >to disentangle. There are two issues here: using a statement (as part >of some larger statement, typically) without asserting it, on the one >hand; and making a statement ABOUT another statement, on the other >hand. The latter is indeed widely called 'reification', (ie the >statement about which something is said gets reified so that you can >say something about it) and the RDF spec. seems to mean to refer to >that; but the reason it gives for using it refers to the first idea, >which is a completely different notion. Virtually the whole >literature on logic, linguistic analysis, programming language >design, parsing and so on - libraries and libraries full of stuff, >stretching over more than a century - has managed to not make this >elementary mistake, and to keep this basic and elementary distinction >clear, so it is particularly frustrating to find that the formalism >being touted as the fundamental basis for the entire semantic web has >managed to screw it up so royally. I understand that distinction between use and mention, but I'm still not clear about the minimal mechanism that we need. -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Sunday, 20 May 2001 16:09:33 UTC