W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: need to determine what RDF is

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 10:13:18 -0700
Message-ID: <00ec01c207fd$4b3e7560$657ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "patrick hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>

Why did you de attribute me and repsoond to Patrick as if he said what I
said.

yucky poo ...

Seth

----- Original Message -----
From: "patrick hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
To: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>
Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: need to determine what RDF is


> >From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
> >
> >>  Suppose an agent is given
> >>
> >>    <ex:Student> <rdfs:subClassOf> <ex:Person> .
> >>    <ex:John> <rdf:type> <ex:Student> .
> >>    <rdfs:subClassOf> <rdf:type> <rdf:Property> .
> >>    <rdfs:subClassOf> <rdfs:domain> <rdfs:Class> .
> >>    <rdfs:subClassOf> <rdfs:range> <rdfs:Class> .
> >>    <rdfs:Class> <rdf:type> <rdfs:Class> .
> >>
> >>  and responds that it entails
> >>
> >>    <ex:John> <rdf:type> <ex:Person> .
> >>
> >>  This agent is not an RDF reasoner (is not doing RDF).  Its reasoning
is
> >>  unsound in RDF.  The agent may be an RDFS reasoner, but it is not
doing
> >>  RDF.
> >
> >I agree, given *only* the assertions in the rdf namespace, there is no
way
> >that an automated agent *could* arrive at that entailment.  But given the
> >logical interpretation of certain rdfs:comments,
>
> WHAT logical interpretation of comments? Those comments are written
> in English, not in any formal logic. So until someone comes up with a
> model theory for English (and incorporates it into a Web language
> spec) they have no logical interpretation. (Isn't this obvious?
> That's why we call them 'comments'. If they were comments in a piece
> of Java code, nobody would expect the Java VM to be able to read them
> and take their meaning into account.)  Bear in mind that this entire
> SW game is supposed to be putting stuff on web pages that can be used
> by software reasoning agents, not by human readers.
>
> >  it certainly can be
> >entailed.   I seems to me that any automated agent that attempts to
arrive
> >at conclusions about assertions, without knowing any rules that apply to
its
> >predicate, would always be going beyond the data given.
>
> No, that is precisely what it cannot do. The *automated* agent only
> knows the 'rules' that are specified by the formal part of the
> language spec and the formal language it can read. Comments are
> invisible to it. It *cannot* go beyond the data given.
>
> Pat
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC (850)434 8903   home
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola,  FL 32501 (850)202 4440   fax
> phayes@ai.uwf.edu
> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
>
>
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 13:19:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:30 GMT