- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 11:31:30 -0400 (EDT)
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- cc: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, <em@w3.org>, <w3c-semweb-cg@w3.org>
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org> > Subject: Re: need to determine what RDF is > Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 11:21:36 -0400 (EDT) > > > > > My take in a nutshell. The core problem (our 'rdfms-assertion' issue, on > > my reading) > > > > RDFCore 1.0 RDF/XML documents have propositional content; they represent > > 'claims about the world'. What factors fix this content, ie. what > > is relevant when we set about considering whether some bundle of these > > RDF/XML-represented propositions are true or not? > > > > I don't think there is a simple answer. I wish there were... > > > > Dan > > Hmm, this is not really what I was getting at, as it includes lots of > issues about the relationship between RDF graphs and the real world. > > I'm only interested in relationships between RDF graphs. Which such > relationships are RDF relationships? > > My view is that the only such relationships are RDF entailment and RDFS > entailment. Any agent that computes any other relationship between RDF > graphs is not doing RDF. (Well, actually, I suppose that an agent could be > determining whether two RDF graphs RDF entail each other, which is > different from RDF entailment, but I think that you should be able to get > my drift.) Aha. Thinks are clicking into place now! I need to think more about this, but I'm understanding much better how we may be talking past each other. Thanks, Dan
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 11:32:13 UTC