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: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 09:22:09 -0700
Message-ID: <005501c0bf7e$e5f38460$b17ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
From: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>

> >There is a word for that concept ... "supervenience"  ... see Chalmers
> That isn't really quite right. Supervenience refers to a relation
> between theories which has a rather complicated philosophical
> definition (it is like being translateable to, except that the
> translation can vary from moment to moment, eg the notion of
> temperature is supervenient on molecular motion.). Drew is talking
> about something much simpler, which is assigning an interpretation to
> a language. It doesnt make sense to say that something supervenes on
> a language.

My point is that triples are excellent ~molecules~ on which a language can
supervene;  any language .. a language of web meta data .. or even a formal
language designed to facilitate the discovery of relationships between
things.  I would be iterested in talking about that; i'm not interested in
talking about some quasi-precise definition of "supervience".

language: Semenglish
    foaf:mbox seth@robustai.net;
    hasHomePage http://robustai.net/~seth/index.htm ;
    (wants to show you)
http://robustai.net/mentography/CoherentExperience.gif .
    description "Is easily read and written by both computers and humans.";
    capability "Can be unambiguously translated into triples and\or RDF\XML
with no loss of information.";
    see http://robustai.net/mentography/semenglish.html ;
    availability (upon request).
Received on Saturday, 7 April 2001 12:25:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:34 UTC