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

Re: A plea for peace. was: RE: DAML+OIL (March 2001) released: a correction

From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 16:37:23 -0400
Message-ID: <038901c0be10$3919cc00$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
> > I suppose I've always seen as one of the benefits of RDF's triple model
> > very fact that it maps so easily onto a relational table -- and admit
that I
> > assumed this abstract syntax would in some sense inherit the formalism
> > the underlying database (e.g. this very relational model you mention).
> > you say this _isn't_ the case then I certainly agree things need to be
> > fixed, it just seems as though it shouldn't be that hard to do.
> I would be very interested in hearing about the details of this easy
> mapping.  (Yes, you should consider me to be very skeptical about this.)
> I see a number of mismatches between the RDB model and the RDF model,
> including open-world versus closed-world, finite versus infinite domains,
> notions of identity, how to handle URIs and the things they refer to,
> reification, transitivity, inference of types, typing (particularly
> subtyping), and domain and range.

Part of the issue is that you are mixing up RDF Schema (e.g. domain, range)
with RDF... For RDF alone:

    predicate : URI
    subject : URI
    object : URI

-- note that RDF literals can be encoded as "an example": data:text/plain,an
example so that all objects can be represented as URIs, literals using the
"data:" scheme.

-- a URI is a string having the syntax described in RFC 2396 (the EBNF isn't
quite perfect but close enough)

Let's start with this alone, and add concepts only as absolutely needed.

Received on Thursday, 5 April 2001 16:52:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:38:20 UTC