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

Re: Spec doesn't talk about two-valued relationships

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 09:35:58 +0000
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010311093329.03688c30@joy.songbird.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:48 GMT