Re: Triad Logic

On 6/25/13 2:13 PM, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
> Hi list,
> Just posted a article at that may be of
> interest to members of the list.  It's a fairly detailed formal
> definition of what I'm calling a "Triad" calculus (or logic or
> language) that I believe could be used to define RDF-like languages
> very concisely, expressively, and formally.  I think there's enough
> there, there, so you can see what I'm getting at.  It might be useful
> in the Great LD Definition Debate of 2013.
> There are two specific aspects of it for which I would appreciate any
> pointers to related work.  One is a concept, "strengthening", as
> counterpart to the standard idea of extending a language (or
> entailment regime): basically, instead of adding to the language, you
> reclassify the symbol set.  It seems to me that strengthening (as I
> describe it in the blog) is pretty serviceable as one of the
> fundamental differences between RDF languages and FOL.  I don't recall
> coming across anything similar, but my knowledge of the logic
> literature is hardly encyclopedic.  I expect somebody must have
> written something about it (maybe calling it something else); pointers
> welcome.
> The other thing is sticking existential quantification in the
> meta-language and using "rewrite" rules to get from (what are
> effectively) triples with blank nodes to the equivalent formal
> quantificational sentence.  Seems to work well enough; if it does, I
> suppose it's a technique that must have been used somewhere, so again,
> pointers appreciated.
> Also:  is this the right place for this kind of post?

I've copied in the ontology forum. I certainly know you'll feedback from 
there :-)

> Cheers,
> Gregg



Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web:
Personal Weblog:
Twitter/ handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile:
LinkedIn Profile:

Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2013 18:19:11 UTC