RE: Logic and Using The Semantic Web Toolbox

Peter,

you wrote:
> I fear that parts of RDF are not suitable for this purpose.
> In particular, RDF already includes some ``semantic'' stuff,
> namely sets and reification, that has a very shakey semantic
> status.  Sure, it is possible to produce something at the
> next layer up that maps into RDF in some way.  But this next
> layer will not be able to build on the shakey portions of RDF.

Which purpose? If you understood that I was arguing *for* semantic
extensibility, then you are mistaken. I was arguing *against* it,
particularly when using some existing vehicle in the language that was
intended for something else and has its semantics.

> I don't see how you can add semantics to constructs that
> already exist.  If the constructs already exist, then they
> should have a meaning.  Semantic extensibility should involve
> adding new constructs with their own meanings.

I am pretty sure I agree :-)

BTW, I would like to stop discussing "RDF syntax", at least if by syntax we
mean the convention of XML usage specified by the RDF M+S spec. It is not
interesting. And thinking in terms of the graph is simpler.

Regards,

	- Ora

--
Ora Lassila, mailto:ora.lassila@nokia.com, +1 (781) 993-4603
Research Fellow, Nokia Research Center / Boston