- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 20:24:38 +0200
- To: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>, RDF Logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
On 2002-02-04 19:58, "ext Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net> wrote: > If the *only* arcs on a Bnode are (rdf:type, rdf:subject, rdf:predicate, > rdf:object) then I suppose that there is really only the one > ~description(1)~ and all other occurrences of that ~description(1)~ **in the > same document** are simply duplicates. Just like the description "the > first sentence of this email" is the same description wherever it appears > and has the same denotation wherever it appears in this email. Even though > it does denote a different sentence when it appears in a different email. > > Now if we add a 5th arc to such a Bnode (for example time, place, author, > trust, etc) then that ~description(2)~ certainly is not the same as > ~description(1)~. Just like "the first sentence of this email which begins > with 'E' " is not the same description as "the first sentence of this email" > nore does it denote the same sentence in this email. This was the same kind of reservation I was having about this. C.f. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0032.html > > Hmmm.... does the MT automatically smush Bnodes in the same graph with the > same identical property arcs, even though the Bnode subject is different ? It has been suggested that because they are empty circles, they smush together just fine, with no aftertraces... ;-) >> If we're not going to take the implications of reification >> seriously, let's just throw it out. > > If we throw it out how are we to describe statements? Exactly. Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 13:23:28 UTC