- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:11:09 -0400 (EDT)
- To: seth@robustai.net
- Cc: sean@mysterylights.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
From: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net> Subject: Re: A Rough Guide to Notation3 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:03:15 -0700 > From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> [...] > > This is a matter of some contention. In fact, I would argue that one of > > the main problems with the Semantic Web vision is precisely this view that > > the Semantic Web is tied to simple labeled directed graphs. > > Why? Strangely enough I happen to believe it is the current obsession with > applying formal logic to language that is one of the main problems with the > Semantic Web. Imho, the Semantic Web is about communication and finding > whatever we are looking for. I have yet to see a single application of > formal logic that has furthered that goal. Well, how are you going to ascribe a common meaning to the graphs you are sending around? > > > It *is* all about the graph ! > > > > Why should the Semantic Web be restricted to such a limited mechanism? > > Well I do not view it as a limited mechanism. I have a long standing > challenge, seeAlso (knowledge representation), that says that I can > represent anything that can be expressed in any language with labeled > directed graphs. To this day nobody has met that challenge to my > satisfaction. Well, how do you *represent* - and here I mean represent, not encode - the following first-order sentence using *only* labeled directed graphs? forall x exists y forall z P(x,y) -> Q(y,z) v S(z,y) [...] > Seth Russell Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Friday, 23 August 2002 13:11:23 UTC