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

Re: Chainsaw?

From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 10:45:20 +0000
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001109104129.00ddd8d0@pop.dial.pipex.com>
To: Tom Van Eetvelde <tom.van_eetvelde@alcatel.be>
Cc: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>, RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Tom,

Maybe so.  A key element of your rule is quantification, which uses a 
locally bound name.  Introducing such using RDF is one thing I am thinking 
about.

Prolog is a tool I've used in the past, so prolog-like descriptions are one 
of the approaches that inform my thinking.  I also aim to retain a strongly 
declarative flavour.

#g
--

At 12:23 PM 11/8/00 +0100, Tom Van Eetvelde wrote:
>Aha,
>
>Does this mean the problem can be solved with statements and rules?
>
>E.g.:
>
>My statement:    Fordescort is defined by FORDCompany.
>My rule:             if x is a FordEscort, x has a color and it is red.
>
>The rules define the context of FordEscort. The statements give extra info 
>on the concept 'context
>of FordEscort'.
>
>This goes into the direction of Prolog. Maybe one should ask oneself: is 
>my modeling problem
>inherent to the problemdomain or am I using the wrong modelling tool? I 
>guess if it is the latter,
>you can learn from the other modelling tool how to do things in your 
>currently used modelling tool.
>
>Greetings,
>
>Tom.
>
>Graham Klyne wrote:
>
> > Jonathan,
> >
> > I for one don't know the answer to your question, but I'm trying to pursue
> > some ideas.  In considering and responding to Sergey's comments, I come to
> > think we're looking at different facets of the same problem:  I'm focused
> > on expressivity (with partial information), you're focused on inference, I
> > think.  In the end, I expect we'll find a solution that adequately captures
> > both, and hence answers your question.
> >
> > #g
> > --
> >
> > At 01:22 PM 11/2/00 -0500, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> > > > My interpretation of the second statement is that it says the *bag*
> > > > containing the statements that define a [FordEscort] is defined by
> > > > [FordMotorCompany].  My goal is to make that assertion about the 
> (reified)
> > > > statements themselves.  (Consider, there may be another bag defined by
> > > > another party containing some of the same statements.)  The nearest 
> thing
> > > > in the RDF spec is <Description 'aboutEach=...'>, but I find that 
> lacks a
> > > > corresponding representation in the RDF abstract model.
> > >
> > >     And this is the problem. As much as it is good to keep the model as
> > >simple as is possible, the model needs to model the --isa--> chain 
> properly.
> > >Part of this is the 'inheritance' of property values in a fashion 
> similar to
> > >the way an object instance might 'inherit' const values defined as members
> > >of the class. Usually these const values can be static or class 
> members. So
> > >the question is, how is this best modelled in RDF?
> > >
> > >Jonathan Borden
> > >The Open Healthcare Group
> > >http://www.openhealth.org
> >
> > ------------
> > Graham Klyne
> > (GK@ACM.ORG)

------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Thursday, 9 November 2000 05:13:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:46 GMT