Re: RDF and (a subsets of) F-Logic

Hi Jos,

Thanks for this.

The embedding in section 3.1 seems a straightforward transcription of 
RDF (w/o datatypes) and the associated RDFS inference rules into an 
F-logic molecules notation. In the way you are using it is there 
anything which makes this different from a notational variant on a 
simple triple(s,p,o) predicate?

BTW in our own applications we do make use of what you call 
"higher-order" features (especially in queries and in rules) and make 
some use of "non-classical" (though those latter uses can often be 
addressed by some sort of layered approach).

In section 5 is there a reason that your "RDF interaction axioms" are 
one way?  If one were trying to use this embedding as a way to perform 
inference over RDF then you'd want the reverse direction as well.

[Minor:
   - I didn't spot the definition of bl(S), I assume it is just the set 
of blank nodes in S
   - in Definition 2 I suspect you mean ".. or 
ContainerMembershipProperty, Resource, Class or Property occurs in *a 
non-class position in* S."]

Cheers,
Dave

Jos de Bruijn wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> At the last face-to-face meeting I mentioned that there is a direct
> semantic correspondence between RDF triples and data molecules of the
> form a[b->>c] in F-Logic.
> 
> Find attached a paper which describes an embedding of RDF(S) in F-Logic,
> and presents several results. We also present an extension of RDF with
> rules, and, in general, arbitrary theories.
> 
> For the members of this working group, the results on the embedding in
> Theorem 1 and Corollary 1, and the extension in Definition 4, with the
> result in Theorem 5, would be the most interesting.
> 
> If we would want to adopt this embedding/extension in RIF, we might want
> to rename "molecule" to "triple", and syntax-wise we might choose
> something like NTriples for representing the statements.
> 
> 
> 
> Best, Jos
>

Received on Monday, 26 March 2007 10:10:19 UTC