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

Re: nature of anon resource [was Re: log:forSome]

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 10:19:44 +0100
To: fmanola@mitre.org
Cc: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <OFFC0A8D78.7FEB616C-ON41256A6F.002F0325@bayer-ag.com>

Frank wrote:
> "There exists a [resource] x such that name(x, Ora Lassila) and email(x,
> lassila@w3.org) and creator(http://www.w3.org/Home/Lassila, x) and
> URI(x, http://www.w3.org/staffid/85740)
> which simply adds the additional piece of information.
> What I've just said is based on the interpretation of RDF as making
> statements in an EC logic;  but any quantification is *implicit* (so is
> the conjunction).  I think that's the only sense in which we have
> quantification in RDF.  We don't have *explicit* existential
> quantification (Sergey noted, and I agree, that this would be out of
> scope), and we don't have universal quantification in any form.

I think I agree with that, and we have experimented with
*implicit* existential quantification of N-triples at
and think that it might work...

e.g. for the N-triples in

_:bag <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type>
      <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Bag> .

_:bag <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_1> "1" .
_:bag <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_2> "2" .

we now have the following (outside-core) N3

@prefix log: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#>.
this <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#forSome>
   [ <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type>
     <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_1> "1";
     <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_2> "2"].

Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 18 June 2001 04:23:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:01 UTC