W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > March 2002

LANG, SEM: Re: more on a same-syntax extension from RDF(S) to OWL

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:55:56 -0500
Message-ID: <00c701c1c46f$05636ae0$0301a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jeremy Carroll wrote:


> > > One of the major benefitts of N3 over
> > > RDF (including N-Triples) is the simple ability to write down a set of
> > > statements _without asserting them_.
>
>
> What are the use cases for this ability?

Basically anywhere you see (in N3) { ... } a context is defined in which the
contents are not necessarily asserted.

Perhaps the simplest use of this is an IF THEN statement or an OR statement

IF {sky color blue} THEN {trees color green}

OR { [sky color blue] [sky color grey] [trees color green] [trees color
brown] }

or

FORALL ?x such that [?x color blue] => [mary likes ?x]

A simple way to write down a simple formula is the use case.

>
> What I have seen so far is the desire to state logical entailments.
>
> This is quite addressable outside RDF rather than inside the graph.
> The N3 version could be modelled in RDF as a load of triples, with N3
> contexts roughly corresponding to bags of reified triples in RDF.

Yuck!

A simple syntactic device for making a simple IF THEN statement seems like a
useful thing.

Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2002 12:22:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:48 GMT