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

Re: Why? Re: rdf as a base for other languages

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 21:03:11 -0500
Message-Id: <v04210119b741ec12760e@[205.160.76.219]>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>, las@olin.edu, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> > I really really don't mean to _assert_ that the diagnosis is one in that
> > particular list.
> >
> > What I do wish to assert is the <if> expression. The problem with RDF as it
> > is currently defined (statement == triple == fact) is that I cannot assert
> > an expression created of multiple statements (i.e. a subgraph) apparently
> > without asserting each of the subgraphs within the subgraph.
>
>(repeating Dan Connolly yesterday...)
>
>This seems to be a common myth.  Where in the current definition of
>RDF does it say that you cannot describe (mention) a triple without
>asserting (using) it?

The point is not MENTIONING a triple without using it (that you can 
do by reifying it), but that one needs to be able to USE it without 
asserting it. For example, if I assert (not P), I am using P, not 
mentioning it - that would be
(not 'P ) -  but am definitely not asserting it. In general, whenever 
one asserts a propositional expression, other than a conjunction, 
they are using its subexpressions without asserting them.

RDF seems to provide no way to do this. If this impression is 
mistaken, please someone disabuse me as soon as possible.

Pat

---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 4 June 2001 22:03:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:40 GMT