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

Re: Converting SHOE to RDF: about 2/3 done; some gotchas

From: Guha <guha@guha.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 07:49:47 -0700
Message-ID: <392A9A8B.4AAA3CDC@guha.com>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
A "logic language" requires a "model theory". A model
theory usually specifies how a set of statements made
in the language can be interpreted as a set of satisfying
structures. This specifies semantic implication (|=). It
can then optionally have a "proof theory", which specifies
how to (mechanically) go about deducing statements
in the language (|-).

RDF makes an initial stab at a model theory by virtue
of its data model. If we clean it up and finish it, we will
have a simple and rudimentary model theory for RDF.
But as it stands now, we don't really have a logical language ...

Of course, I am just clinging on to old-fashioned definitions ...


Graham Klyne wrote:

> At 12:26 AM 5/14/00 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> >Hmm... I'm not sure what you mean by "full semantic understanding."
> >RDF has no built-in logic whatsoever. The "full semantic understanding"
> >depends on more than just the availability of various things...
> >it depends on what inference rules you choose to use, what
> >sort of logic, etc.
> A question, if I may...
> I have seen two kinds of statement made about logic in RDF:
> (a) RDF has logical conjunction (multiple predicates of a subject generally
> taken to be parts of a conjunction)
> (b) RDF has no built-in logic (as you say above)
> Are there differing views, or am I missing something?
> #g
> ------------
> Graham Klyne
Received on Tuesday, 23 May 2000 10:50:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:30 UTC