- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:46:07 -0800
- To: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- CC: connolly@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Drew McDermott wrote: > Howeve, you're right that it's reasonable to have a way of serializing > graphs in XML. I would expect such a serialization technique to > address issues such as distinguishing between directed and > undirected graphs, I don't think it's too much a stretch of the imagination to see a undirected graph as a special case of a directed graph. In other words one interprets: [A]---r--->[B] [A]<---r---[B] as: [A]---r'---[B] > keeping track of cycles or declaring their absence, > etc. This is a non issue; easily solved at the application level. > In the meantime, it seems to me there is a need for an XML-based > notation for logical statements. I agree .. perhaps someone from the KIF community will help us here. > I don't think it needs to look > radically different from RDF, but it does need to give up the graph > model. Why? I can think of several ways to represent logical statements in RDF and all of them need the graph model. A logical statement is a tree, and a tree is a special case of a labeled directed graph. Seth Russell
Received on Monday, 18 December 2000 16:42:12 UTC