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

Re: Maximum cardinality of an RDF model

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 23:30:56 -0600
Message-Id: <v04210125b6a53a914746@[]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>pat hayes wrote:
> > >4. RDF models can contain at most countably many statements:
> > >   becauce they're subsets of,
> >
> > Yes, you are right to infer that. However, your question raises
> > another, related, issue: according to several members of the group
> > which developed RDF, the 'graph model' of a set of RDF triplets is
> > intended itself to be *the* model (in the sense from model theory) of
> > those triplets.
>Really? can you cite a source for that? I'd like to correct it.
>The use of the term "model" in the RDF spec has
>nothing to do with model theory, as far as I know.
>I think it was you, Pat, that explained that
>what the RDF specs call a model is usually called
>an abstract syntax in logic literature.

Yes, I did, and when I had done so I got a phone call from Guha and 
an email from Ora (as I recall from memory: sorry if I am making the 
wrong attribution here) telling me why I was wrong, and that the 
right way to think about it was as I described above, ie that the 
graph model is, indeed, a model in the sense of model theory. It 
seemed kind of crazy to me also, but I wasnt there when this was 
decided, so I took it as authoritative (and gave up trying to make a 
model theory for RDF, since it already had one: a damn silly one, but 

> > It follows that all RDF models of any RDF ontology
> > (that could be stored on any web page, at any rate) must be not only
> > countable, but finite. Now, since the finite-model restriction is not
> > expressible in first-order (or any complete semi-decideable) logic,
> > this would appear to indicate that RDF must have a semantics which
> > has no semidecision procedure (and hence no proof procedure.)
>I'm just sort of teaching myself all this model theory stuff
>as I go, but as far as I understand it, the semantics
>of RDF are just like the semantics of first-order logic,
>where the only terms are URIs (constant symbols) and
>existentially quantified variables, and the only formulas are
>ground propositions, conjuctions, and existentially quantified
>At least, that's one logic, and it's sort of implicitly
>in the RDF 1.0 spec.

Yes, that is what I would have guessed from the spec; it is kind of 
what it suggests. I was trying to do was put reification into the 
model theory as well, which is trickier. Maybe I should get back to 
that task.

>Things get more interesting when you start using the
>RDF model/abstract-syntax with extensions to that
>logic with stuff like =, not, KIF's wtr, lambda, etc.

Er, yes, they would. Rather in the way that a pavement gets more 
interesting when the St Patricks Day parade walks on it.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2001 00:28:04 UTC

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