- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:17:06 -0700
- To: "Danny Ayers" <danny@panlanka.net>, <info@jan-winkler.de>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
From: "Danny Ayers" <danny@panlanka.net> > <- 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. > > generally speaking, won't <conditional> and <value> have true/false values? > In which case the context/processing is irrelevant - if the condition's true > then so's the consequent... (what is done with this knowledge is another > matter) Nope, only the <conditional> has a true\false value to some process within some context, then the <value> would be known to be something like "Mr" or "boy" according to the RDF mapping of the relation. Seth
Received on Saturday, 28 April 2001 15:21:06 UTC