- 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