Re: lists and other facts and rules in RDF

jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com wrote:
> 
> Dan,
> 
> While at Disneyland Paris I couldn't stop thinking about your
> cool list stuff at http://www.w3.org/2000/07/hs78/lists and also
> about the problem of expressing other facts and rules in RDF.
> 
> We have the following assertions
> [var:X e:in [var:X e:list var:B]]
> [[var:X e:in [var:A e:list var:B]] e:if [var:X e:in var:B]]

I have come to accept the practice of identifying variables
in RDF by string prefix matching, but I don't believe there's
any cause for making a new URI scheme for them. Please
stake out a portion of URI space that you own for this purpose,
such as

ftp://windsor.agfa.be/outgoing/RCEI/NET/euler/variable#*

so in stead of the URI var:x , write

ftp://windsor.agfa.be/outgoing/RCEI/NET/euler/variable#x

I have claimed a portion of URI space for variables:

	http://www.w3.org/2000/07/hs78/KIF?indvar=
	(cf http://www.w3.org/2000/07/hs78/KIF )

Note that the semantics of a variable are tied up with
the whole semantics of the logic they're used in.
But if your logic is consistent with KIF (and there's
a good chance it is) then by all means, use these URIs.

There's no problem using var: as a namespace prefix.
But please don't go around using unregistered URI schemes
without really good reasons.

More on the rest of your proof stuff when I manage
to study it further, I hope...


> [1] ftp://windsor.agfa.be/outgoing/RCEI/NET/euler/index.html

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/