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

Re: what RDF is not (was Re: RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised) W3C Working Draft published)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 16:27:46 -0500
To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
Cc: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, mmoran@netphysic.com, dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-Id: <20011220162746K.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
Subject: Re: what RDF is not (was Re: RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised) W3C Working Draft published)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 22:15:53 +0100

[...]

> Indeed (but...)
> 
> Let's take graph1 (but not assert it)

How (in RDF)?

>   _:child gc:childIn _:family .
>   _:parent gc:spouseIn _:family .
> 
> and let's take graph2 (but not assert it)

Ditto.

>   _:aaa gc:parent _:bbb .
> 
> and let's
> 
>   o assume that bnode _:child is same thing as bnode _:aaa

How (in RDF)?

>   o assume that bnode _:parent is same thing as bnode _:bbb

Ditto.

>   o assert that graph1 logically implies graph2

Ditto.

> From the ``implies'' scope the bnodes in graph1
> are actually universally quantified variables
> (and in this case also the bnodes of graph2
> but not in the general case, where they
> are only existentially quantified).
> That is a FOL entailment rule
> which we can simply write as
> 
>   { ?child gc:childIn ?family . ?parent gc:spouseIn ?family }
>     log:implies { ?child gc:parent ?parent } .
> 
> No?

I really don't know what you are trying to get at here.
Are you trying to show that RDF has some power that one might not think
that it has?  If so, you need to show that all the steps above can be
performed within RDF.

> --
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/


peter
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2001 16:29:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:52 GMT