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

RE: rdf as a base for other languages

From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 17:38:08 -0400
To: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, <ziv@unicorn.com>
Cc: <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000d01c0ebac$507c2770$0201a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>

> >
> > What are "ground facts" this picture? Where in this picture does RDF
> > fit in? Where would another language "built atop RDF" fit in? Or is
> > all this irrelevant to the debate?
> Let us try (and this is not intended as 'hardcore')
> (and modulo syntax issues)

Just to be clear: what follows is suggested for N3 which by the way
represents statements as quads not triples. To be clear, N3 is different
than RDF M&S 1.0. Besides extending RDF, it does not appear, from my wading
through the code, that N3 takes statements to be necessarily asserted. Of
course I could be totally wrong about this, not entirely understanding what
the "cwm" code is doing.

Indeed the code "affectionately" refers to its quads at triples.

> [[
>   We've got terms of the form
>     _:name      for "anonymous" terms
>     <absURIref> for URIs
>     "lskdjf"    for string literals.
>   and statements of the form
>     S P O.
>   where S, P, and O are terms (S and P can't be literals
>   in the expected results from any RDF 1.0 document.)
> ]] -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0264.html
> Logical conjunction is just juxtaposition of statements.
> So far that is what one maybe could call RDFCore.

where is mention of contexts here? remove contexts and N3 isn't N3 as it
stands today. i think it is just plain confusing to sketch out a partial
description of this for people who are trying to sort out these issues.
Indeed N3 defines the new parseType="log:quote". The RDF 1.0 Recommendation
reserves new parse types for new versions of RDF itself (not that I don't
think this is a good thing -- but just to be clear that N3 is not conformant
to RDF 1.0)

By RDFCore, and as a member of the RDFCore WG, are you saying that this is
what the WG is considering the new definition of RDF? If that's the case we
are arguing cross issues. The assumption on this thread (as far as I can
tell) is that RDF means RDF M& S 1.0, the W3C Recommendation. I think its
excellent if the WG is giving real consideration to breaking away from the
triple concept.

> "built atop RDF" could be DAML based languages.
> and First Order Logic as per http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log.n3
>   log:implies    for logical implication
>   log:forSome    for existential quantification
>   log:forAll     for universal quantification
>   log:Truth      for assertion i.e. stmt a log:Truth.
>   log:Falsehood  for negation i.e. stmt a log:Falsehood.
> I would say that ground facts are Horn-clauses with one positive literal.

We need to clarify _which RDF_ we are contemplating building something atop.

Received on Saturday, 2 June 2001 17:39:44 UTC

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