- 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