- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:56:44 -0600
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: seth@robustai.net, 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... ;-) Hey, who said that? There is a lemma (second anonymity lemma in section 2 ) in the MT document, with proof (in the working draft, just about to appear) that says that you cannot validly smush two Bnodes. > >> 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. Well, but who needs to? There are much simpler ways of *referring to* a statement. And in any case, does reification enable you to describe a particular statement? Seems to me that as currently understood, it only allows you to say that some statement with a particular form *exists*. There's no way to say 'this statement... has this form....' because there's no way to associate the description with the actual statement. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 16:40:14 UTC