> In my opinion, this is an extremely messy way to approach what is > basically a simple problem. At any point in this downward spiral we > can jump ship and switch to a non-RDF language. Indeed, the only > reason to stick with an RDF language inside the quotes is to fool > ourselves into thinking we haven't left RDF; it's RDF outside the > quotes and RDF inside. But the stuff inside the quotes requires all > sorts of machinery that we didn't need outside them, so we really are > fooling ourselves. Pop-up an RDF node as/into an RDF graph *in place* (somewhat by-value). Its content is not asserted, only quoted in a *non-opaque* way (as RDF). We certainly can feed resolution-based logic/proof engines that way. -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2001 19:43:16 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:38 GMT