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

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 06 Mar 2002 16:07:24 -0600
To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: jonathan@openhealth.org, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1015452445.1755.80.camel@dirk>
On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 11:54, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
[...]
> I definitely agree with you that RDF reification is cumbersome.  But that
> doesn't make N3 formulae significantly better than RDF reification.  In
> fact, the (only) meaning given for N3 is via an underspecified ``mapping into
> the RDF data model'', so somehow N3 formulae have to be mapped into RDF.

My favorite N3 spec explains it in terms of KIF (i.e.
first order logic plus quoting).

    *  a formal design for RDF/N3 context/scopes
      Dan Connolly to www-rdf-logic, Thu, Sep 06 2001
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Sep/0004.html

cited from the "Logic primitives" section of
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3

With running code to convert any N3 expression to KIF.
  http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/KIFSink.py


That reminds me... I'd like to see the same-syntax paradox
written out in KIF. Maybe I could do it myself, but
if you beat me to it, Peter (or anybody else), I'd appreciate it.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2002 17:08:13 GMT

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