W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2010

Re: RDF Scoping Mechanism

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:17:00 +0100
Message-ID: <4C2E2D1C.4030707@webr3.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Pat Hayes wrote:
> 
> On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Nathan wrote:
> 
>> Pat Hayes wrote:
>>> It wouldn't take very much to make into full first-order logic: all 
>>> it needs is a scoping mechanism (think graph literals in N3 or named 
>>> graphs, or my 'surfaces' idea from the Blogic talk) and negation. 
>>> Mind you, that scoping mechanism would drive a truck through 
>>> triple-store-based implementations, I suspect. Back to tree 
>>> structures and Sexpressions, no doubt :-)
>>
>> Obvious question, regardless of implementations, is there any chance 
>> of getting that scoping mechanism in to RDF through W3C to rec?
>>
>> Any rough ideas how long that process may take? (I'm assuming the RDF 
>> Semantics are bug-less and this would just be an addition).
> 
> Given the amount of Sturm and Drang that something as trivial as 
> allowing literals in subject position has generated, I would think the 
> answer is, likely not in my lifetime.

but they're already there ya? so makes no difference what happens higher 
up the stack and what subset is implemented, surely this would simply 
allow some more innovation in different (future) serializations and 
syntaxes to be rdf valid.

[hoping I haven't failed to grok something here - I could atm have a 
boolean predicate in some doesn't yet exist serialization and it'd be 
valid at the rdf semantics level yes?]

ps: please nobody jump on this like we're talking about RDF/XML, Turtle 
or any serialization.

Best,

Nathan
Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 18:18:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:37 GMT