W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: RDF Concepts and formal inference paths ?

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 18:36:41 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: seth@robustai.net
Cc: "www-rdf-comments@w3.org" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>


I agree that "no formal inference path" might include non-RDF inferences, 
and that one might define 'B:oneOfThem' in such a way that there is a 
formal inference.

But, in this case, I think the use of English text in an rdfs:comment to 
convey the intended meaning makes any formal inference path rather unlikely.


At 06:53 AM 10/18/02 -0700, Seth Russell wrote:
>RE  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Oct/0048.html
>Where it is written that:
>To emphasize this, suppose that B had failed to use rdfs:subClassOf and 
>instead had tried to use his own term:
>B:Comic B:oneOfThem  <http://insult.com/lexicon#Clown> .
>B:oneOfThem rdfs:comment "This means the same as rdfs:subClassOf" .
>then in spite of the clear social meaning of the comment, there would be 
>no formal inference path from this, taken with the A and C publications, 
>to anything that could be found insulting; so even if C had intended to 
>bad-mouth the person C:JohnSmith, B's stupidity would have thwarted him.
>Shouldn't that read that there is no formal inference path *sanctioned by 
>the RDF Model theory* from this, ....
>We certainly can make our inference path be any formal rules we choose. 
>Our inference engine could follow the rules for B:oneOfThem just as easily 
>as it could follow the  rules for rdfs:subClassOf and the inferences will 
>be just as formal.  The only variable is  that we cannot claim endorsement 
>of that formality from the W3C Model Theory.
>... just my humble opinion.
>Seth Russell

Graham Klyne
Received on Sunday, 20 October 2002 14:23:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:01 UTC