- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 04:27:15 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
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? I think I just sort of misspoke... you can regard the set of statements that a chuck of RDF makes to be ANDed together, and you can look at certain RDF constructs as existentially quantified things... and the prose that defines rdfs:subClass gives a rule that could be regarded as an inference rule. To be more clear, I should have said "RDF has no built-in logic that covers first order predicate calculus". -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2000 05:27:40 UTC