- From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:24:37 -0500
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Monday, July 9, 2001, at 05:04 PM, pat hayes wrote: > The problem with this is that it then becomes impossible to > provide a single coherent model theory. log:forSome is a good > example, in fact. If that means what it apparently is supposed > to mean, then any triple using it cannot be interpreted > according to the terms used in the RDF M&S, since the latter > claims that a triple indicates a relation holds between two > things; but log:forSome is a quantifier, which is not a > relation. The intended meaning breaks the earlier semantic > model. Well, log:forSome provides a relationship between a graph and a resource mentioned in the graph. But this requires having a URI for the graph, something which CWM does but is not specified in the RDF spec. > I would argue in the opposite direction. If we want to > incorporate expressions which have special meanings, then > provide syntactic markers for them, so that a semantics has > some handles to attach itself to. Well, we could always do: <foo> rdf:type rdfs:AnonymousNode . Would that be acceptable? -- "Aaron Swartz" | The Semantic Web <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> | <http://logicerror.com/semanticWeb-long> <http://www.aaronsw.com/> | i'm working to make it happen
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2001 12:24:41 UTC