- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 13:49:40 -0400
- To: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>
- cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Seth:
> Sandro:
> > If we want to
> > say something with a more complex logical structure ("The force is
> > strong with *everyone* in Luke's family"), we can't use RDF as the
> > only language.
>
> Why not? .... it's a piece of cake ....
>
> http://robustai.net/mentography/forceIsStrong.gif
>
> If you force me to, I'll write the graph in N-Triples.
That might be helpful, but I think I understand your graph anyway.
The problem here is that your labeling of "?everyone" as a univerally
quantified variable, while it is carried by RDF, is not part of the
definition of RDF. Its meaning is not defined by the model theory.
RDF does not have a define facility for saying something is a
universally quantified variable. It DOES have a facility for saying
anything about anything, which is what you're using, but that facility
does not guarantee any sort of relevant behavior by RDF processors.
So what you're doing here is making a new logic language, one which
has universally quantified variables, and using RDF to carry an
expression in that language. Well, some of the knowledge is in that
language, and some is in normal RDF, which does make it a bit
confusing.
-- sandro
Received on Saturday, 6 October 2001 13:51:19 UTC