- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:59:35 -0700
- To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- 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. No, it doesn't. The quantifier is not a relation between the quantified expression and the quantified variable. It doesn't mention the expression: it uses it (in an admittedly devious way). >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? Yes and no. Sorry, but the answer depends on what 'rdf:type' is supposed to mean. However, we can't do <foo> rdf:type rdfs:AnonymousNode and also do <foo> rdf:type rdfs:Resource because the first takes <foo> to be a node, while the second talks about what the node denotes. You can have it either way, but you can't have it both ways (in the same langauge)(well, not without very severe semantic pain). Pat Hayes --------------------------------------------------------------------- (650)859 6569 w (650)494 3973 h (until September) phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 23 July 2001 22:59:28 UTC