W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2001

Re: "If" and "else" in RDF

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:21:57 -0700
Message-ID: <005f01c0d010$1d5d93e0$b17ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "Danny Ayers" <danny@panlanka.net>, <info@jan-winkler.de>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny Ayers" <danny@panlanka.net>
To: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>; <info@jan-winkler.de>;
<www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 10:25 AM
Subject: RE: "If" and "else" in RDF


>
> <- Yes, you can certainly represent the mapping of the production
> <- rules in RDF.
> <- But, imho, you cannot say "if <class> then <value>" without specifying
an
> <- agent and a method ... so that untill you do, that construct would
always
> <- remain vague and useless.
>
> I'm not sure whether <class> and <value> would be the best candidates to
go
> in such rules (what's the intention of <value>?), but something like "if
> <statement> then <statement>" isn't vague at all.

How does whether the <conditional> it is a class or statement changes our
basic perdicament?

>Such constructs, like the
> rest of RDF and markup in general, only become useful when an agent
> (method?) acts upon them...

Ok on that we agree.  Some process needs to operate on the <conditional> to
access the truth of the situation within some context before the value is
known.  Sure, we can represent any relation R(<conditional>, <value>) in
RDF.  But, me thinks,  if we try to take the extra step of saying inside the
RDF "if <conditional> then <value>", without also specifying at least the
class of process,  and the class of context in which that statement is
operational, me thinks we are kidding ourselves.

Seth
Received on Saturday, 28 April 2001 14:25:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:49 GMT