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

Re: RDF Statements as floating Cons Cells

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:15:05 -0500
Message-Id: <v0421016cb746a3ae2fff@[]>
To: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>   [Pat Hayes]
>   Oh God, I am inclined to give up at this point. Why are we even
>   bothering to try to adapt this unbelievably broken system to make it
>   do something which it is  incapable of doing? I thought that I could
>   see a way to extend RDF to add more complex syntax to it, and now you
>   have convinced me that it can't be done.
>   ...
>   How does it stop someone adding
>   X3a X4b S
>   X4b nil T
>   and making the structure 'doubly defined' ? There is no way to do
>   that, as far as I can see. At this point I think I shall just go home
>   and go to bed.
>Well, I hope a good night's sleep has revived you.

With coffee, yes, thanks.

>I don't quite see why "double definition" is so scary here and not
>elsewhere.  We could have an axiom

Written in what notation?

>ruling it out, so that if the same
>list were defined twice we could conclude that the CAR in one
>definition must = the CAR in the other, and so forth.  We might get a
>contradiction out of it.  Or whatever.  But is it any different from
>father(fred, sally) and father(murderer(mary), sally)?  We don't
>conclude Sally has two fathers, but that fred = murderer(mary).

You are talking about reasoning in RDF (plus something that encodes 
axioms) *about* lists. I was thinking of this trick as a way to morph 
datastructures into RDF, not have RDF talk about datastructures. I 
was basically trying to trick RDF into encoding KIF as LISP-style 
Sexpressions, without violating any of RDF's own rules, in such a way 
that normal RDF turns out to be a valid special case of a KIF 
relational atom, ie [s V o] in RDF means (V s o) in KIF.  I thought I 
could see a simple extension which would do this, but I now see that 
all it enables me to do is to *describe* Sexpressions, not to 
implement them, and that the tool that I would need, in order to do 
what I wanted to do, is incompatible with the fundamental intuitions 
of RDF.

The RDF model, I now think, is really not properly captured by the 
connected blob-and-line diagrams which show connected graphs and 
suggest datastructures: it really is a *set* of isolated triples, 
which retain their meaning through any addition or deletion to the 
set; but those sets are not themselves in the model, so cannot be 
used as structuring tools. The graph-picture needs to be recomputed 
every time the set is changed.  If I have that right, it really isn't 
a base on which one can build any viable larger structures, seems to 
me. It has been made to resist any kind of stable extension being 
constructed. I feel like a mason who has been given teflon bricks.

Maybe we should stick to using RDF as a simple ground-data language, 
and just build or use something else altogether for doing more 
complicated stuff.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Friday, 8 June 2001 12:15:02 UTC

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