- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:49:07 -0500
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> > 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). That is a contradiction. What do you mean by 'non-opaque' quoting? >We certainly can feed resolution-based logic/proof engines that way. Not while retaining consistency you can't. In a sense, of course, you can input any string of characters you like into any engine you like, and *something* will happen. Not a very useful sense, though. Pat Hayes --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 6 April 2001 14:47:13 UTC