From: Jim Hendler ([email protected])
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 [email protected]
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