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

Re: RDF Terminologicus

From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 12:45:45 +0100
Message-ID: <3A55B3E9.6B592187@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
CC: Bill dehOra <BdehOra@interx.com>, RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Graham Klyne wrote:
> I agree that there are ways of modelling these statements that overcomes
> the conflict illustrated.  But I think the core of RDF should be as liberal
> as it can be about how it is used.  Much as the core of RDF does not of
> itself impose a particular logic framework, hence allows alternatives to be
> used in different situations.

I do agree with that : RDF, as natural language, should be usable in very intuitive way.
Anyway, I can't help thinking that your example is twisted :

if I say "The sentence s1 was true yesterday",
the word "yesterday" applies to the whole sentence above, *not* to the sentence s1 !

Let's take another example from natural language :

Graham Klyne wrote earlier :
> Stating:
>    An assertion that some statement is true in some context.
> (or should that be:
>    An assertion in some context that some statement is true.
> ?)

you were concerned that both sentences do not have exactly the same meaning.
Anyway, most of the time, you would have used one or the other indifferently.
Approximative language can work, but only to a certain point.
Your example works to a certain point (namely: until two occurences of the same statement are used).


Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the
universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
(Bill Watterson -- Calvin & Hobbes)
Received on Friday, 5 January 2001 06:45:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:34 UTC