W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2001

Re: New RDF model theory (well, damn nearly)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 20:52:18 -0500
Message-ID: <3B7B2752.A4699FFE@w3.org>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
pat hayes wrote:
> Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>:
> >We had a Semantic Web Advanced development discussion
> >about the issue
> >  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-identity-anon-resources
> >
> >......
> >But from Pat's presentation, it became clear that *any*
> >use of RDF that puts a document "on the pointy end of
> >an entailment arrow" motivates the distinction between
> >existentially quantified variables and genids.
> Right, I think that is the key point. The 'query' way of phrasing the
> discussion raises a lot of extraneous (in this context) issues.
> BTW, the new version of the MT makes the anon/uri node distinction
> somewhat sharper and (I think) clearer. It has existential
> quantification right in there. If we stick to the graph as the
> central model everything really is MUCH simpler. I think we should
> stop arguing about this now :-).

I scanned this new MT, and I agree: it resolves the basic
issues to my satisfaction (but then, for my money, the
pre-f2f MT was good too).

I've got some issues with the formalization/layering of RDFS;
they're perhaps stylistic. I'll elaborate in a separate message.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2001 21:52:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:03 UTC