From: Jim Hendler (jhendler@darpa.mil)
Date: 03/05/01
At 12:42 PM -0500 3/5/01, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >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. While I know what you mean, there are some people (probably including me) who would see these clauses as contradictory. >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 I think "tagging" in some form is a crucial thing for the language to have - as we move to rules, I think it wil be crucial (I will want to know where rules come from, and maybe use that to break the inevitable A->B, B->C, C->A loops that might arise from distributed rule definitions). The semantics of SHOE (not as formal as DAML) focused a lot of effort on claims, and we make use of them in a number of ways. I also agree w/Peter that we may not want to buy into the full RDF reification within the "logical interpretation" aspects of DAML+OIL+?x Dr. James Hendler jhendler@darpa.mil Chief Scientist, DARPA/ISO 703-696-2238 (phone) 3701 N. Fairfax Dr. 703-696-2201 (Fax) Arlington, VA 22203 http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST