- From: Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:54:02 -0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>, Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>, Umutcan SIMSEK <s.umutcan@gmail.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Hello,
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
> But RDF isnt intended to be used in theology. It is intended for recording data, and most data is pretty mundane stuff about which there is not a lot of factual disagreement.
I think that's the wrong argument. A logical system like RDF should
enable a community to state whatever they decide worthy of stating.
Whether they agree with others or not should not be a concern of RDF.
Provenance should be a different level than the base logic: we should
only start thinking about provenance once we are done deciding what
consistency means. You find religious groups perfectly agree on some
truths. Scientific truths get overturned in unexpected places all the
time.
Take care
Oliver
--
IT Project Lead at PanGenX (http://www.pangenx.com)
The purpose is always improvement
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 12:54:30 UTC