- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 14:40:48 -0500
- To: Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@sti2.at>
- Cc: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, Heiko Paulheim <paulheim@ke.tu-darmstadt.de>, semantic-web@w3.org
On Oct 28, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Dieter Fensel wrote: > At 11:19 AM 10/28/2011, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: >> Graph 2a and Graph 2b are not equivalent either in terms of formal semantics, > > Is it then fair to say that the formal RDF semantics is "broken" not reflecting the intuitive semantics of RDF? No, but it is fair to say that RDF is a descriptive/logical language rather than a specification/programming language. And of course this is what it was designed to be, and this is exactly what the RDF semantics specifies it to be. I suspect that the "intuitive" semantics you are referring to is in fact a mistaken intuition, gotten by thinking of RDF as something like a programming language. Wrong way to think. Pat > > > -- > Dieter Fensel > Director STI Innsbruck, University of Innsbruck, Austria > http://www.sti-innsbruck.at/ > phone: +43-512-507-6488/5, fax: +43-512-507-9872 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Saturday, 29 October 2011 19:41:38 UTC