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: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 08:29:00 -0400
Message-ID: <08d801c0edbb$19bc4510$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
Graham Klyne wrote:

> At 10:35 AM 6/5/01 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:
> >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
> I wouldn't say "necessary", and I don't have a pointer for you, but it
> seems to me useful if RDF is a sub-language of LL, because that way an LL
> processor can consume RDF and interpret it the same way as a simple,
> non-logical application.  Further, if there turn out to be several LLs, it
> might be very useful if they all recognize the same ground facts with
> compatible interpretations.

In particular, I recall something that TimBL stated at the February RDFIG
F2F to the effect that: the assertions in an RDF document ought be
considered either as if or actually _legally binding_ (please correct me if
I have misstated this).

It seems to me that if this is desirable, the semantics of RDF need to be
clearcut. For example:

(not (owes Jon $1,000,000))

Whether the statement "(owes Jon $1,000,000)" is a fact or a falsehood
depends on the context. If this simple concept is not correctly understood,
the rest is hopeless.***


*** I suggest that we adopt a common semantics for simple logic operations
such as Drew McDermott's
http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/dvm/daml/proposal.html or TimBL's

We can debate Quine's: Two Dogmas of Empiricism for some time, but
regardless of whether there is one true language of logic, as an engineer I
find it useful for us to share and use a small set of common terms.
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2001 08:46:16 UTC

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