W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > March 2009

Re: Issues with rif:iri in a number of places in the spec

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:10:59 -0400
To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, RIF WG Public list <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090326161059.1df73158@kiferserv>


On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:36:55 +0100
Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it> wrote:

> >> Regarding annotations - thinking about it I realized I'd been assuming the IRIs 
> >> in the metadata would stand for the document, rule, or whatever peice of syntax 
> >> it is annotating, as Dave said.  I'm not sure what other people were assuming, 
> >> but if we agree we could make that explicit.  
> > 
> > But these are not IRIs. These are rif:iri constants. Such a constant stands for
> > nothing whatsoever unless you axiomatize it. The name of a constant has no
> > relevance in logic or KR.  
> 
> Well, annotations and imports have no logical meaning, so from a formal
> point of view it is not a problem that IRI constants are used here.

Annotations do have logical meaning, since they are formulas. The whole point of
making them formulas is that they can be pooled together into a KB and reasoned
about.

Regarding the imports, the directives are not terms themselves -- this much is
true. But in a bigger schema of things, suppose someone sends you a document
and you then decide to import it into your KB. This would require the ability
to assert import statements. While such asserted statements are not directives,
we will be facing here with the same problem of finding an appropriate logical
representation for the IRIs of the imported documents.
In the case of these asserted import statements, these IRIs would have to be
constants, so why not do the same in the Import directive?

michael
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2009 20:11:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:03 GMT