Re: How do RDF and Formal Logic fit together?

From: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>

> 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.

Hmmm... neither is the definition of 'is strong with' in RDF, that
definition needs to be layered on top of RDF in a schema.   What makes the
definition of 'forall' any different in this regards?   But I understand
what you are saying, I just think saying it with the words "we can't use RDF
as the only language" is misleading because we certainly can use RDF as the
only carrier, and what is a carrier but a language  ... right?

> 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.

For me, every thing in the language must end up being a labeled arc or an
implied labeled arc ... that is what I would like a RDF model theory to
mean.  My trouble with quantifiers in FOPC is that they are just a syntactic
trick, they don't end up being labeled arcs ... but they certainly could be.

http://robustai.net/mentography/forceIsStrong.gif

Thanks for the dialogue ...
Seth Russell