- From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:51:05 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: axel@polleres.net, RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <47D647F9.9000907@inf.unibz.it>
>>
>> Well, the RDF model theory gives a precise definition.
>> In short, like any other symbol, a blank node is mapped to an element
>> in the domain. Then, satisfaction of triples is determined by the
>> extension function IEXT: IP -> 2^{IR x IR}.
>
> Interesting...this suggests that blank nodes are not treated as
> variables (but as constants)?
No. Both blank nodes and names are mapped to objects in the domain.
The former are mapped using a blank node mapping; the second are mapped
using an interpretation.
>
> (I ask because this is in heavy debate in the OWL WG...if RIF is going
> to be playing with RDF (e.g., generalizing it) it's probably important,
> or at least helpful, to coordinate.
Indeed. Although, RIF does not propose to generalize RDF as such. If we
merely define interoperability with respect to a superset of RDF.
>
>>>> The reason we consider extended RDF graphs is to accommodate
>>>> possible extensions of RDF that are less restrictive in their syntax.
>>> So, can we define both a general framework plus one compatibility
>>> notion actually compatible with current RDF? That would be fine with me.
>>
>> The current notion is completely 100% compatible with standard RDF,
>> since every standard RDF graph is a generalized RDF graphs, and the
>> semantics is exactly the same.
>>
>> I just see three options:
>> 1 define compatibility only with respect to standard RDF
>> 2-define compatibility with respect to generalized RDF
>> 3- define compatibility with respect to "semi-generalized" RDF, in
>> which you would not have literals and blank nodes in property positions
> [snip]
>
> 3 is akin to what sparql allows, yes? I guess that provides *some* reason.
I guess so.
Best, Jos
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>
--
debruijn@inf.unibz.it
Jos de Bruijn, http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
One man that has a mind and knows it can
always beat ten men who haven't and don't.
-- George Bernard Shaw
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 08:51:26 UTC