W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2014

Re: An alternative RDF

From: Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:51:07 +0100
Cc: Tara Athan <taraathan@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
Message-Id: <AEDFCB0E-0367-49D5-BE69-810B7F270465@glasers.org>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>

On 11 Jul 2014, at 09:14, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote:

> * Tara Athan <taraathan@gmail.com> [2014-07-11 03:51-0400]
>> On 7/10/14 10:59 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>> RDF is an assertional language, and by its very nature is capable of expressing contradictions.
>> Aside from giving the same name to two different named graphs, what
>> sort of contradictions can be expressed in RDF - without going to at
>> least the RDFS entailment regime?
> 
> I think you are agreeing with Pat. Victor was talking about
> contradictions in his domain (program) which RDF was unable to
> prevent. An trivial example would be
> 
>  <Bob> :gender "M", "F”.
Nice one.
But of course, many people or domains of discourse would see no problem in this.
Which is sort of the point, perhaps.

:monster :species :bull, :man.
No problem for the ancient Greeks either.

That’s what is great about RDF (well, one of the things…)
Cheers
> 
> (Note that OWL could detect that error, as could Resource Shapes,
> Shape Expressions, ...)
> 
> 
>> Tara
>> 
> 
> -- 
> -ericP
> 
> office: +1.617.599.3509
> mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59
> 
> (eric@w3.org)
> Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
> email address distribution.
> 
> There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
> which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
> 

-- 
Hugh Glaser
   20 Portchester Rise
   Eastleigh
   SO50 4QS
Mobile: +44 75 9533 4155, Home: +44 23 8061 5652
Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 09:52:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:52 UTC