Re: rdf as a base for other languages

• From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
• Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 11:40:04 +0100
• To: Peter Crowther <peter.crowther@networkinference.com>
• CC: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
• Message-ID: <3B1CB704.AA9DAD1C@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Peter,

Peter Crowther wrote:

> > LL of course, could be encoded in RDF, but that is not the
> > same thing as it 'being' RDF.
> 
> Brian, can I ask how you would encode such a language in RDF yet prevent it
> from being RDF --- or, at least, being mis-interpreted as RDF by a
> non-LL-aware agent?  I guess I'm taking issue with the 'of course' in the
> above paragraph; I think that encoding process needs clarification.

Now I wish I hadn't included that paragraph.  I included it only to try
to head off any confusion between extension and encoding.

I'd like to focus on my main question though.  What are the relative
merits of 'extending' RDF v designing a new language for
expressing rules which operate on ground facts expressed in RDF.

Brian

Received on Monday, 4 June 2001 06:41:07 UTC