SUO: Re: RE: ONT Somebody Explain Reified To Me Please ...
I'm curious about this too. I came to this term from my study of RDF [1]
where a statement cannot be the object of another statement - consequently
RDF has a way of reify statements such that they may be subjects of our
discourse. This corresponds with the dictionary definition of reify: "to
regard (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing." In other
words in RDF, a statement is abstract in the sense that it cannot be a
subject, so we must construct a new subject from it and call that new
subject the reified statement, and then that is the concrete thing which we
discuss.
How is that different than the usage of this term in logic and philosophy?
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#higherorder
Seth Russell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Angus" <chris.angus@btinternet.com>
To: "SUO" <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>; "Jon Awbrey"
<jawbrey@oakland.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 7:49 AM
Subject: SUO: RE: ONT Somebody Explain Reified To Me Please ...
>
> Jon
>
> I am not clear whether you are simply making the point that the term
> 'reification' has become rather overused and abused, or whether you are
> stating that you believe it is being incorrectly applied in the case of
> Topic Maps and XTM 1.0.
>
> I believe that the intended usage in XTM is fully consonant with its
> traditional usage in philosophy and linguistic semantics. If you do not
> agree perhaps you might like to explain why.
>
> Regards
> Chris Angus
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> > [mailto:owner-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Jon Awbrey
> > Sent: 23 July 2001 14:30
> > To: Steve Pepper
> > Cc: topicmapmail@infoloom.com; Arisbe; Stand! Unfold! Ontology!
> > Subject: ONT Somebody Explain Reified To Me Please ...
> >
> >
> >
> > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> >
> > Steve,
> >
> > The term "reification" is a venerable old term from philosophy,
> > the subject whereof it speaks often going about under the more
> > formidable names of "hypostasis" or "hypostatic abstraction",
> > at least two of which can be found in an ordinary dictionary.
> > That, of course, was how it was in pre-web days, whence it
> > has come to pass that nobody reads ordinary dictionaries
> > anymore -- they are far too busy writing the new ones! --
> > which is not to say that they read what they hath rot.
> > So you will find that the meaning of this old word
> > has now been corrupted past the point of sensible
> > utility and should be put away until a time, if
> > ever it comes round again, when folks come to
> > recognize their own wraptures in history.
> >
> > Jon Awbrey
> >
> > P.S. Because this topic has come up repeatedly
> > in several other e-forescences I have wot,
> > and because 'hope springs eternal', usw.,
> > I shall revive a few of my old efforts to
> > explain what are the critical issues here.
> > But later.
> > J.A.
> >
> > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> >
> > Steve Pepper wrote:
> > >
> > > At 13:01 23.07.2001 +0100, Guy Murphy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > To extend the question then ... the process of reifying
> > > > that which is outside the system, so that it can be
> > > > addressed from within the system makes sense ...
> > >
> > > The reason for creating a topic (i.e., reifying a subject)
> > > is not to make that subject addressable, but to provide
> > > an identity point for topic characteristics.
> > >
> > > > Why would we want to reify that which is already addressible
> > within the system?
> > >
> > > Because otherwise you have nowhere to put its characteristics,
> > > and therefore you cannot "say" anything about it.
> > >
> > > > Why...
> > > > [something that represents something that represents A] >>
> > > > [something that represents A] >>
> > > > [A]
> > > >
> > > > ... that just seems like an exercise in obfuscation to me.
> > >
> > > I agree. Who wants to do that? Take him out and shoot him!
> > >
> > > > 1) Why does and association need to be a topic in order to address
it?
> > >
> > > It doesn't. But it does need to be a topic (i.e., explicitly, in the
> > > interchange syntax) if you want to give it names and occurrences.
> > > (The syntax would allow you to let it play roles in associations
> > > without an explicit topic, but I would warn against this in most
> > > cases in order to avoid unnecessary obfuscation.)
> > >
> > > > 2) If you reify [association A] as a topic, can [topic B]
> > > > be an instance-of this new topic?
> > >
> > > There is nothing in either the syntax, nor the conceptual model, nor
> > > (as far as I know) any of the proposed data or processing models that
> > > would prevent this.
> > >
> > > At the intuitive level it does seem rather nonsensical, but in general
> > > the specification doesn't get into preventing people from doing
> > > nonsensical things.
> > >
> > > > 3) Are the authors of the spec all acid victims from the 60s?
> > >
> > > Not all of us :-)
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > > --
> > > Steve Pepper, Chief Executive Officer <pepper@ontopia.net>
> > > Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3 Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps)
> > > Ontopia AS, Waldemar Thranes gt. 98, N-0175 Oslo, Norway.
> > > http://www.ontopia.net/ phone: +47-23233080 GSM: +47-90827246
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > topicmapmail mailing list
> > > topicmapmail@infoloom.com
> > > http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
> >
> > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
>