Re: DAML and reification

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 03/05/01

• Next message: Jim Hendler: "Re: DAML and reification"
• Previous message: Mike Dean: "reification use cases"
• In reply to: Mike Dean: "DAML and reification"
• Next in thread: Jim Hendler: "Re: DAML and reification"
• Reply: Jim Hendler: "Re: DAML and reification"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

The problem is just what is supposed to be the meaning of reification in
RDF.  There is no guidance from the RDF spec in answering this question.
(Consider the DAML axiomatization---it provides no meaning for
reification beyond the totally uninterpreted data structures.)

Should we be answering this question in advance of RDF answering it?  I
don't think so.  DAML+OIL is an ontology language, not a language for
representing and reasoning about statements.

One way of geting what you want would be to be able to tag real statements
somehow.  This is NOT reification, but I don't think that tagging needs
reification at all.  Using reification for tagging is like using the entire
waste heat output of a malfunctioning nuclear power plant to heat your
home.

Peter Patel-Schneider

• Next message: Jim Hendler: "Re: DAML and reification"
• Previous message: Mike Dean: "reification use cases"
• In reply to: Mike Dean: "DAML and reification"
• Next in thread: Jim Hendler: "Re: DAML and reification"
• Reply: Jim Hendler: "Re: DAML and reification"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST