W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > May 2004

Re: ruleml and RDF

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 12:52:00 -0400
Message-Id: <200405311652.i4VGq0Il013071@roke.hawke.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: G.R.Wagner@tm.tue.nl, www-rdf-rules@w3.org

> From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: ruleml and RDF 
> Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 11:59:23 -0400
> 
> > 
> > > SWRL assigns a different meaning to documents written in RDF/XML than tha
> t
> > > provided by the RDF model theory.  
> > 
> > Which of course means they are not written in RDF/XML, right?
> > 
> >      -- sandro
> 
> Well, that depends.   
> 
> Can N3 be written in RDF/XML?  Can N3 be written in triples? 

No, not in any normal sense of those words that I know.

> If so, then
> so can SWRL.

And if not?  :-)

N3 expressions can be described in RDF, and described formulas
(truth-valued expressions) can be claimed to be true or false in RDF,
so N3 can be carried inside RDF, but that's not surprising at all,
since English can be carried as well (eg in rdfs:comment triples).

I understand that although my above claim is pretty obviously true in
a naive sense, there may be serious problems in the details, and that
you are not yet convinced those probably can ever be solved.   This is
the problem I talked about in the rest of the RDF section of the SWRL
comment.

    -- sandro
Received on Monday, 31 May 2004 12:51:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:53:11 GMT