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

Re: rdf as a base for other languages

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 21:20:33 -0500
Message-Id: <v0421011bb741f10fa221@[]>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>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.

I'm not quite clear on the distinction here. I take it that the idea 
of 'extending' RDF would be that there is a language RDF# which 
contains RDF, ie every RDF expression is legal RDF#, and has (almost) 
the same meaning in RDF# as it has in RDF; but RDF# allows other 
kinds of expressions as well.
The other alternative is a language NEW which allows ground RDF facts 
as legal expressions with the same meaning that they have in RDF, and 
has other kinds of expressions as well.

Hmm. The only difference seems to be that the parts of RDF that 
express something other than ground facts might be missing from NEW, 
but would have to be included in RDF#. The trouble is, there don't 
seem to be any such other parts of RDF.

Pat Hayes

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Monday, 4 June 2001 22:20:38 UTC

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