- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:37:44 +0000
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 08:25 11/03/2003 -0500, Eric Miller wrote: >ACTION: Gk to follow up on the concepts implication on pfps-15 >(context: http://www.w3.org/2003/02/28-rdfcore-irc#T16-11-37) [[ Can RDF say anything about anything? The RDF documents are contradictory on this point. The Primer indicates that RDF can be used to let anyone ``say anything they want about existing resources'' with no exception for the resources used by RDF. Concepts says that ``RDF is an open-world framework that allows anyone to make simple assertions about anything''. However, Concepts also says that ``Certain URIs are reserved for use by RDF, and may not be used for any purpose not sanctioned the RDF specifications.'' ]] -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0148.html Is the comment I believe led to pfps-15. My follow-up here is this: I think any Concepts implications of pfps-15 will be picked up in dealing with pfps-16: [[ RDF Concepts states The expressive power of RDF corresponds to the existential-conjunctive (EC) subset of first order logic [Sowa]. How can takes(John,book,school) be represented in RDF? How can loves(John,spouse(John)) be represented in RDF? How can the RDF and RDFS semantic conditions be represented in the existential-conjunctive subset of first order logic? ]] -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0154.html Essentially, this (and maybe other) actions on Concepts require that descriptions about the expressive power of RDF be tightened up. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2003 10:17:03 UTC