Re: need to determine what RDF is

From: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>
Subject: Re: need to determine what RDF is
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 10:10:10 -0700

> From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
> 
> > > > Yes, but my point is that this logical interpretation is *not* RDF
> > > > entailment.  It is, instead, RDFS entailment.
> > >
> > > I still fail to see why it is important for us to classify entailments.
> > > It's just going to over complicate stuff needlessly.  If my agent knows
> the
> > > rules for rdfs:subClass, than it can arrive at legitimate entailments,
> if it
> > > doesn't know those rules, then  it can't. Why can't we just agree not to
> > > bother to classify entailments?   What added benefit is gained by
> > > classifying entailments?
> >
> > Well, the question is what is RDF.  There appears to be disagreement over
> > this, which I feel needs to be resolved.
> 
> I suppose that depends on what "is" is.  But seriously, you appear to have
> avoided my questions.  What is the relationship between the question {What
> is RDF?}and  (the classification of entailments according to namespace) ?
> 
> Seth Russell
> 

Well, a bit part, in my view the most important part, of RDF is doing
inferences.  The only definition of inferencing in RDF is RDF(S)
entailment.  However, some people seem to think that RDF inferencing
encompasses much more than this.  Thus the problem.

peter

Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 13:19:04 UTC