- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 20:13:04 -0500
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- CC: " - *www-rdf-interest@w3.org" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com wrote: > > Dan, > > While at Disneyland Paris I couldn't stop thinking about your > cool list stuff at http://www.w3.org/2000/07/hs78/lists and also > about the problem of expressing other facts and rules in RDF. > > We have the following assertions > [var:X e:in [var:X e:list var:B]] > [[var:X e:in [var:A e:list var:B]] e:if [var:X e:in var:B]] I have come to accept the practice of identifying variables in RDF by string prefix matching, but I don't believe there's any cause for making a new URI scheme for them. Please stake out a portion of URI space that you own for this purpose, such as ftp://windsor.agfa.be/outgoing/RCEI/NET/euler/variable#* so in stead of the URI var:x , write ftp://windsor.agfa.be/outgoing/RCEI/NET/euler/variable#x I have claimed a portion of URI space for variables: http://www.w3.org/2000/07/hs78/KIF?indvar= (cf http://www.w3.org/2000/07/hs78/KIF ) Note that the semantics of a variable are tied up with the whole semantics of the logic they're used in. But if your logic is consistent with KIF (and there's a good chance it is) then by all means, use these URIs. There's no problem using var: as a namespace prefix. But please don't go around using unregistered URI schemes without really good reasons. More on the rest of your proof stuff when I manage to study it further, I hope... > [1] ftp://windsor.agfa.be/outgoing/RCEI/NET/euler/index.html -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Saturday, 12 August 2000 21:13:39 UTC