- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 09:35:58 +0000
- To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Cc: RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 08:28 PM 3/10/01 -0600, Aaron Swartz wrote: >Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote: > > >> Because a generic system doesn't know whether 0 means false, or an > address, > >> or whatever. > > > > It may be that we come at this with different worldviews/assumptions about > > how systems might work, but it seems to me that that kind of "knowledge" > > would be embedded in inference rules; e.g. > > > > <http://www.aaronsw.com/> bob:chocolateLover "0" . > > bob:SweetBrownStuff rdf:type bob:Chocolate. > > -> > > <http://www.aaronsw.com/> bob:doesNotEat bob:SweetBrownStuff > >The question is what rules/terms are needed to be able to do this in the >general case. That is, I'd like my system not to have to have specific >knowledge about chocolateLover, Chocolate, and doesNotEat. Sooner or later, methinks, it is needed that statements are grounded in "real-world" knowledge. How do you suggest that such grounding may be introduced into a system? (I propose it is through axiomatic facts and inference rules.) #g ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Sunday, 11 March 2001 04:44:48 UTC