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

RE: property inference rule

From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 22:02:50 +0100
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EBEPLGMHCDOJJJPCFHEFGEIJEEAA.danny666@virgilio.it>

>> I was seeking for ways  to express this rather basic fact using bare
>RDF(S)/DAML syntax.
>
>There's no way of expressing this in RDF, in RDFS or in DAML; it requires
>the ability to use variables.  Variables are not part of any of the three
>representations.

I'm not entirely convinced - for one thing, expressing the relationship
isn't the same as resolving it, so perhaps something like equivalentTo might
do. For another, if it is viewed as a transformation rather than a
procedure, no variables are required (XSLT, anyone?). If I'm shot down on
these points, then there's always TimBL's cwm and log:implies.

Cheers,
Danny.

---
Danny Ayers
http://www.isacat.net

Alternate email (2001) :
danny666@virgilio.it
danny_ayers@yahoo.co.uk

>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
>[mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Peter Crowther
>Sent: 06 November 2001 16:21
>To: 'Nikita Ogievetsky'; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
>Subject: RE: property inference rule
>
>
>> From: Nikita Ogievetsky [mailto:nogievet@cogx.com]
>[...]
>> RuleML, Jess and SWI-Prolog seam to introduce their own semantics on the
>top of RDF.
>
>Not surprising; RDF merely allows one to assert a set of triples.
>Rules are
>not a part of RDF.
>
>> I was seeking for ways  to express this rather basic fact using bare
>RDF(S)/DAML syntax.
>
>There's no way of expressing this in RDF, in RDFS or in DAML; it requires
>the ability to use variables.  Variables are not part of any of the three
>representations.
>
>		- Peter
>
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2001 16:05:51 GMT

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