- From: Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@mitre.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 23:58:02 +0000
- To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Given his responses on the public-lod list, I think he's blowing smoke. >-----Original Message----- >From: ontolog-forum-bounces@ontolog.cim3.net [mailto:ontolog-forum- >bounces@ontolog.cim3.net] On Behalf Of Kingsley Idehen >Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 2:19 PM >To: public-lod@w3.org; [ontolog-forum] >Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Triad Logic > >On 6/25/13 2:13 PM, Gregg Reynolds wrote: >> Hi list, >> >> Just posted a article at http://blog.mobileink.com/ 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 :-) > > >Kingsley >> >> Cheers, >> >> Gregg >> >> > > >-- > >Regards, > >Kingsley Idehen >Founder & CEO >OpenLink Software >Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com >Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen >Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen >Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about >LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2013 23:58:30 UTC