- From: Guha <guha@epinions-inc.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 08:27:23 -0800
- To: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- CC: Tom Van Eetvelde <tom.van_eetvelde@alcatel.be>, ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
I don't think it makes sense (yet) to talk about the soundness or completeness of RDF. We have not provided either a model theory or a proof theory. guha Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote: > Tom Van Eetvelde wrote: > > Thanks for the explanation. I can conclude now that Appendix A is pure illustrative. > > not exactly ! > it is usable by a validator, which does not have to hard code the domain and range of rdfs:range; for example. What I said is that it is not SUFFICIENT, but not USELESS. > > > self referential data structures are dangerous (cfr. Bill dehOra). > > that's right, > that's what makes RDF powerful and scalable, > and that's why RDF alone is NOT a complete and sound logical language ; > > but my conviction is that > - it can be restricted to fit another language (cf SiLRI, for example) to do hard reasonning > - it can be used alone to do "soft reasonning" > > Pierre-Antoine > > --- Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur > Whatever is said in Latin sounds important.
Received on Thursday, 30 March 2000 11:48:21 UTC