W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > April 2001

Re: Can we agree on triples ?

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:00:17 -0700
Message-ID: <008c01c0bba7$2a8ba020$b17ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, <jonas@rit.se>, <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

> Perhaps, but how is the RDF use of triples any different from Drew's URF?
> I don't see much difference, if any.

Hopefully not by much: like a rose: (a triple) isa triple; isa triple;  isa
triple .....

But seriously the biggest distinction would be that one gets zillions of
references to RDF at google and for the life of me I can't find a single URL
to URF.  There is power in collective agreement ... that power is what we
are talking about.  Anybody can come up with a good system,  when we agree
to use the same system, that is when we stop fragmenting.

> > > The point is that no one is arguing against using Unicode or RDF as a
> > > coding scheme; the argument is against using either as a formal
> > > language.  If RDF is simply an encoding scheme, then we can put it on
> > > the back burner and focus on the language actually being encoded.
> > > If we view it *as a formal language*, then its flaws loom large.  It
> > > lacks many key features, including implication and bound variables.
> >
> > Did I miss something here?  I thought that the RDF triples model *was*
only
> > a coding scheme and has never  purported to be a *formal language*.
>
> A coding scheme is a formal language.

Hmm.. that would seem to contradict Drew's paragraph.

> > But
> > shouldn't we formally agree that triples *are* the building blocks of
any
> > next level "formal language" before we move on?  Continually bickering
about
> > that will mean that collectively our projects will fragment.
>
> Sure, why not.  That would be OK for me (but certainly not ideal).

:))))

> But RDF uses triples for lots more than just a building block of the next
> layer.  RDF provides representational import for all triples that it sees.
> Further, the approved mechanism for the next level is not to implement it
> on top of RDF, but instead to extend RDF.  The RDF-imposed meaning for all

Specifically what "representational import" does RDF specify, that you
cannot live with ?   Bear in mind that I said RDF, not RDFS.

Seth
Received on Monday, 2 April 2001 15:03:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:38 GMT