Re: How to represent logic expressions in RDF (issue 2)

Hi WIlliam,

You’re proposal made me thinking that we basically want a list of "standardized theory” (= predefined rules, like how Jos did for OWL/RDFS & eye) next to a list of builtins. This will also bring us closer to what the minimum feature set of N3 should be.

But let’s indeed create an issue on this or continue in an existing github thread.

Best regards,

Miel Vander Sande
Postdoctoral Researcher at IDLab, Ghent University, in collaboration with imec

AA Tower | Technologiepark 19 9052 Ghent
www.idlab.technology<http://www.idlab.technology>
@Miel_vds




On 27 Feb 2019, at 23:44, David Booth <david@dbooth.org<mailto:david@dbooth.org>> wrote:

On 2/27/19 11:30 AM, William Waites wrote:
. . .
More generally we can *choose* the semantics by choosing what rules to
apply. This might be an important insight, that semantics should be as far as
possible encoded as rules which we can choose to apply or not.

+1.  I like that line of thinking, of basing semantics on rules.

David Booth