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

Re: rdf as a base for other languages

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:35:54 +0100
Message-ID: <3B1CA7FA.80D76622@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, sandro@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Graham Klyne wrote:

> Why the insistence on all-or-nothing?  Is there any fundamental reason why
> we cannot start with a language capable of expressing ground facts, and
> extend it in a consistent way (creating a new language, "outside" the
> original) such that the original language for expressing ground facts is
> present as a sub-language?

A good question Graham, which for me begs another.

RDF is a simple language for representing binary predicates.  It is intended
to represent simple ground facts about the world.

'Logic Systems' require a more powerful language, capable of representing,
for example quantification.

It would seem that there are (at least) 2 approaches to creating that
language.  One is to 'extend' RDF.  The other is to design a new language
with richer capabilities.  With the latter approach, ground facts are 
represented by RDF.  Rules/Logic are represented by the logic language (LL).
Processors implement rules/logic expressed in LL operating on ground facts
represented in RDF.

LL of course, could be encoded in RDF, but that is not the same thing as it
'being' RDF.

Can you point me to an explanation as to why extending RDF is the better
approach?  Why is it necessary or better that RDF be a sub-language of LL?

Received on Monday, 4 June 2001 05:37:06 UTC

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