Re: reification test case

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