- From: Hassan Aït-Kaci <hak@ilog.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 08:27:58 -0700
- To: Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>
- CC: W3C RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Adrian Giurca wrote: > Dear all, > Find attached the Sept 18, telecon minutes. > Let me know if you have any changes to do. > -Adrian > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > W3C <http://www.w3.org/> > > Hassan_Ait-Kaci: I just want to emphasise the Michael Kifer point > ... the embedding is straightforward for the most users of Prolog... > ... most RDF users do not uses the semantics > ... RDF grapth is just a data structure Adrean: this is not exactly what I said; please replace the last three lines above by the following: ... the embedding is straightforward as is that of FOTs for the most users of Prolog... ... most RDF users have no clue about P. Hayes' RDF semantics, which BTW is neither complete, nor the most simple or most elegant one a formalist could fancy... ... for users, an RDF graph is just that: a *graph* data structure (just as a FOT is just a tree data structure for a Prolog user rather than a Skolem function dependency of an existential variable on all the universal variables that precede it !)... Also, a bit further down, please change the following: > Hassan_Ait-Kaci: An example might be a rule set which us metaprogramming... to: "An example may be any rule set dealing with metaprogramming where terms denoting predicate calls are used at both the predicate and term level. I would be curious to see how Jos's would-be normative (!) model-theoretic semantics renders such RDF/S applications - which all users of such rules should of course be intimately familiar with since it'd be normative..." Thanks, -hak -- Hassan Aït-Kaci * ILOG, Inc. - Product Division R&D http://koala.ilog.fr/wiki/bin/view/Main/HassanAitKaci
Received on Sunday, 23 September 2007 15:31:21 UTC