Re: ruleml and RDF

On May 28, 2004, at 5:56 AM, Wagner, G.R. wrote:

>
>> Is the absence of the actual triples bothering you?  If so, you're out
>> of luck, because there's really no good way to put them in.
>
> Drew,
>
> why should there be no good way of expressing RDF triples more
> directly in a rule language?

There *should* be a good way. In point of fact, there isn't (at the 
moment).

> Wouldn't something along the lines below, with a suitably
> extended semantics, work?
[snip]
It would, but it's well, icky :) I'd rather not have to reify, 
personally.

If we're talking standards, much will depend on whether the W3C as a 
body gives up the same syntax requirment on semantic web languages.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.