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

Re: rdf as a base for other languages

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 21:38:36 -0400
To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-Id: <20010601213836I.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
Subject: Re: rdf as a base for other languages
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 02:37:13 +0100

> [...]
> >If RDF wanted to do one or the other, i.e.,
> >    store only ground facts (triples)
> >or
> >    store encodings of more-complex information interpreted using
> >    standardized extensions,
> >then I would not have a problem.  However, the two are, in my mind,
> >completely incompatible.
> I must say (but I better should go to my bed) that I think otherwise.
> If we write (in N3)
>   [ :a :b].
> we actually understand that as the statement
>   [ :a :b] null null.
> (null in the sense of empty (implemented as a Java null))
> so that means that we actually DON'T assert statement
>   _:anonid :a :b.
> (that _ stands for an anonymous namespace prefix)
> but are still able to compute unifiers for resolution.
> Also writing
>   :s :p [ :q :o].
> is asserting statement
>  :s :p _:anonid.
> but is NOT asserting statement
>   _:anonid :q :o.
> --
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

None of the above looks at all like RDF.  If this is supposed to be some
other language, then it is not about RDF.  If it is some language that maps
into RDF, then I think that the mapping needs to be provided, so that we can see
what extra assumptions have to be made.  In particular I don't see any null
in the definition of RDF, nor quadruples, nor unifiers, nor resolution.

Received on Friday, 1 June 2001 22:41:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:35 UTC