- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:21:57 -0700
- To: "Danny Ayers" <danny@panlanka.net>, <info@jan-winkler.de>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Danny Ayers" <danny@panlanka.net> To: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>; <info@jan-winkler.de>; <www-rdf-interest@w3.org> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 10:25 AM Subject: RE: "If" and "else" in RDF > > <- Yes, you can certainly represent the mapping of the production > <- rules in RDF. > <- But, imho, you cannot say "if <class> then <value>" without specifying an > <- agent and a method ... so that untill you do, that construct would always > <- remain vague and useless. > > I'm not sure whether <class> and <value> would be the best candidates to go > in such rules (what's the intention of <value>?), but something like "if > <statement> then <statement>" isn't vague at all. How does whether the <conditional> it is a class or statement changes our basic perdicament? >Such constructs, like the > rest of RDF and markup in general, only become useful when an agent > (method?) acts upon them... Ok on that we agree. Some process needs to operate on the <conditional> to access the truth of the situation within some context before the value is known. Sure, we can represent any relation R(<conditional>, <value>) in RDF. But, me thinks, if we try to take the extra step of saying inside the RDF "if <conditional> then <value>", without also specifying at least the class of process, and the class of context in which that statement is operational, me thinks we are kidding ourselves. Seth
Received on Saturday, 28 April 2001 14:25:51 UTC