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

RE: definition/assertion (WAS rdf as a base for other languages)

From: Ziv Hellman <ziv@unicorn.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 15:46:52 +0200
Message-ID: <6194CD944604E94EB76F9A1A6D0EDD2310D83E@calvin.unicorn.co.il>
To: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
> > a triple connecting a parent with a child, in a
subject-predicate-object format of person-parentOf-child, leaves much
unsaid -- a parent may  
> > have several children. If predicates serve as functions, then this
"function" might not have a well-defined value precisely because the
value 
> > could be any of a number of children. Of course one could make the
object a list, but that too has drawbacks. Logic long ago handled >
> > these matters by distinguishing between relations and functions. But
because relations can be multi-placed and do not always fall neatly >
> > into the subject-predicate-object framework, they are anathema to
many, to the detriment of the representational tools. 


> To be fair to RDF, I think itis based on the relational intepretation.


A quick glance at the RDF spec shows you are probably right. Point
taken. But then I wonder how one could distinguish a relation from a
well-defined function in RDF ...
Received on Saturday, 9 June 2001 08:47:57 GMT

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