Re: the chicken and the egg problem

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.


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