W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2017

Re: I am.

From: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 16:58:03 +0000
Message-ID: <CADE8KM5kX26DVHXfbV00wcQRkRuhJxQ3=BbA9vkxG3kWkw5zow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Martin McEvoy <martin@weborganics.co.uk>, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On Fri, May 19, 2017, 1:58 AM Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:

> Indeed, and also the simple ‘am’ is an assertion of existence, which
> cannot be said (or, perhaps, is trivial) in RDF because RDF (like most
> formal logics) is based on a semantics in which anything that is named,
> exists.
>

Adding RDFS does allow for partial use Quine's hack,  if proper names are
converted to "classes" (I think he'd accept the notational shorthand for a
universally quantified unary predicate, but not the intensional gubbins).

PatHayes a Class; subClassOf Person .
_:x a PatHayes .

NonCurmudgeonlyPatHayes subClassOf PatHayes, NonCurmudgeonlyThing
 #     ;sameAs Unicorn #  wvoq@harvard.edu
.

>
> Would it be cheating to represent things as an RDF node of type Cycl / IKL
> / CLIF  assertions, with the actual representation in an attached literal?
>
> Well, it’s legal, but it rather takes away the point of using RDF in the
> first place. Any RDF entailments will not be Cyc/IKL/CLIF entailments and
> vice versa.
>

But cf the OWL 2 Direct Semantics,  with the  RDF -> Abstract Syntax
mapping.
Received on Friday, 19 May 2017 16:58:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 19 May 2017 16:58:49 UTC