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

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 04:27:15 -0500
Message-ID: <392CF1F3.E2B1669B@w3.org>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
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?

I think I just sort of misspoke... you can regard the set of
statements that a chuck of RDF makes to be ANDed together,
and you can look at certain RDF constructs as existentially
quantified things... and the prose that defines
rdfs:subClass gives a rule that could be regarded as an
inference rule.

To be more clear, I should have said "RDF has no built-in
logic that covers first order predicate calculus".

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2000 05:27:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:43 GMT