- From: Guha <guha@guha.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 07:49:47 -0700
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
A "logic language" requires a "model theory". A model theory usually specifies how a set of statements made in the language can be interpreted as a set of satisfying structures. This specifies semantic implication (|=). It can then optionally have a "proof theory", which specifies how to (mechanically) go about deducing statements in the language (|-). RDF makes an initial stab at a model theory by virtue of its data model. If we clean it up and finish it, we will have a simple and rudimentary model theory for RDF. But as it stands now, we don't really have a logical language ... Of course, I am just clinging on to old-fashioned definitions ... Guha Graham Klyne wrote: > At 12:26 AM 5/14/00 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > >Hmm... I'm not sure what you mean by "full semantic understanding." > >RDF has no built-in logic whatsoever. The "full semantic understanding" > >depends on more than just the availability of various things... > >it depends on what inference rules you choose to use, what > >sort of logic, etc. > > A question, if I may... > > I have seen two kinds of statement made about logic in RDF: > > (a) RDF has logical conjunction (multiple predicates of a subject generally > taken to be parts of a conjunction) > > (b) RDF has no built-in logic (as you say above) > > Are there differing views, or am I missing something? > > #g > > ------------ > Graham Klyne > (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Tuesday, 23 May 2000 10:50:40 UTC