[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mozilla-rdf
Subject:    apology, Re: [rdf/db] nature of RDF triples to store?
From:       David McCusker <davidmc () netscape ! com>
Date:       1999-08-12 22:12:38
[Download RAW message or body]

Chris Waterson wrote:
> David McCusker wrote:
> > Now, can somebody summarize what drivel is meant by the term
> > "reification" in this context.

I'd like to apologize to everyone for my sharp language yesterday.
Sometimes I get cranky and use spicy words that convey displeasure
in succint terms that can give an alarming frisson of negativity.

I hope I didn't insult the RDF community, nor the authors of the
spec.  I'll try to make up for it by describing the formal model
in terms I think would better suit prospective db implementors;
I hope this constructive behavior fixes my destructive comments.

But having said that, I really don't like the word "reification".
My first significant encounter with that term was in an art history
lecture (re Marcel Duchamp, semiotics) I recorded on tape, which had
a sentence using the phrase "reification of the reified reifier",
and I was negatively impacted by the sheer presumptive bravado.

(The problem is that using this word is not a good way to draw in
folks, and encourage the use of RDF, because it is confusing to
those who only grasp plainer english, however much it gratifies
intellectual sensibilities of a writer wishing to use the term.)

> It means that a statement can be considered a resource in and of
> itself, and so can be the subject (or predicate, or object) in
> another statement.

It doesn't seem this situation is so complex it needs a special word.

But I see how that self-referential play could accidentally suck in
two-dollar words from the semiotics community.  In computing contexts,
self-reference happens all the time, and is not that remarkable.  So
a special word might better emphasize what is different and special
about this particular usage; "reification" doesn't seem to do that.

> This is useful, because it allows one to have statements like "RDF is
> crap" and "David McCusker believes 'RDF is crap'" in the same model.

I got a big kick out of the sharpness of this example. :-)  I really
deserved that, and I don't mind taking a lick or two.

Actually I don't think RDF is bad.  And I don't even think the spec
is crap; I was just using too high a standard.  Reading the spec to
grasp RDF is like driving a car to view a scenic drive; in this case,
I was shouting, "The windshield is dirty and the sun's in my eyes,
and I can't see a thing!"  I don't mean to impugn the scenic drive.

David Mc

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]