W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > June 2002

the mythical RDF inference engine was: Re: What is truth anyways?

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 06:24:38 -0400
Message-ID: <004101c211fb$5beda680$0201a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "patrick hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>

patrick hayes wrote:

> >Gentlemen,
> >
> >I'm getting rather frustrated. Perhaps it is a mistake to write a model
> >theory for RDF, as it appears too constraining.
> What it constrains is what RDF inference engines are supposed to do.
> I WANT that to be constrained.

I've never seen this so called 'constrained' RDF inference engine, indeed
every _useful_ piece of software I've seen has extended this base RDF
interpretation in some way from something like implementing
daml:UniqueProperty to implementing a more extensive logic engine such as in

Indeed since base RDF itself is just a bunch of assertions, I'm not sure
what inferencing you can do _with RDF alone_ rather it seems just the
mechanism for carrying 'facts'. I worry that all this emphasis on
inferencine _within_ RDF is over constraining the ability to do inferencing
_on_ RDF.

So why not just say that RDF is a bunch of assertions and forget about this
pure RDF inferencing engine that doesn't seem to exist and let the folks who
care about inferencing decide what inferences might be drawn from a certain
bunch of facts and be done with it.

Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 06:38:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:38 UTC