W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > March 2000

Re: the chicken and the egg problem

From: Guha <guha@epinions-inc.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 08:27:23 -0800
Message-ID: <38E3806B.E80B07B7@epinions-inc.com>
To: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
CC: Tom Van Eetvelde <tom.van_eetvelde@alcatel.be>, ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
I don't think it makes sense (yet) to talk about the soundness or
completeness of RDF. We have not provided either a model
theory or a proof theory.

guha

Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote:

> Tom Van Eetvelde wrote:
> > Thanks for the explanation. I can conclude now that Appendix A is pure illustrative.
>
> not exactly !
> it is usable by a validator, which does not have to hard code the domain and range of rdfs:range; for example. What I said is that it is not SUFFICIENT, but not USELESS.
>
> > self referential data structures are dangerous (cfr. Bill dehOra).
>
> that's right,
> that's what makes RDF powerful and scalable,
> and that's why RDF alone is NOT a complete and sound logical language ;
>
> but my conviction is that
> - it can be restricted to fit another language (cf SiLRI, for example) to do hard reasonning
> - it can be used alone to do "soft reasonning"
>
>   Pierre-Antoine
>
> --- Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
>     Whatever is said in Latin sounds important.
Received on Thursday, 30 March 2000 11:48:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:42 GMT