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

RE: universal languages

From: Miles Sabin <MSabin@interx.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 17:58:17 -0000
Message-ID: <23CF4BF2C499D411907E00508BDC95E116FBDA@ntmews_01.interx.com>
To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Sandro Hawke wrote,
> One nit, in the name of clarity here: you only need pairs for
> directed graphs (DGs).  Triples give us directed labeled graphs 
> (DLGs).
>
> I think you can represent a DLG with a DG, so maybe it doesn't 
> matter.

Indeed you can.

> But it does raise the question: we're using n-tuples to 
> represent information.  Is there any clear reason to use n=3 as 
> our fundamental structuring?   I think it's more conventient 
> than n=2 and makes self-reference easier than n=anything (which 
> most logics seem to use).   But is there a solid theory behind 
> that?

Given that arbitrary n-tuples are reducible to pairs I don't
really see how there could be.

Scholars of ancient and medieval logics will be very familiar
with the idea of taking subject-predicate-object as a fundamental
form ... some people used to have quite spooky ideas about the
significance of the number three in those days too. Whether it's 
really appropriate to take SPO as foundational for a post-Frege,
21st century enterprise, is another question ;-)

Cheers,


Miles

-- 
Miles Sabin                               InterX
Internet Systems Architect                5/6 Glenthorne Mews
+44 (0)20 8817 4030                       London, W6 0LJ, England
msabin@interx.com                         http://www.interx.com/
Received on Saturday, 3 February 2001 12:58:56 GMT

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