W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2002

Re: A Rough Guide to Notation3

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:56:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20020823.145615.26475540.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: sandro@w3.org
Cc: seth@robustai.net, sean@mysterylights.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Subject: Re: A Rough Guide to Notation3 
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:47:55 -0400

> Peter F. Patel-Schneider writes:
> > 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)
> As I mentioned yesterday [1], I believe your example can be
> respresented in RDF using a pre-arranged vocabulary for describing
> true sentences.  This is a same-syntax extension to RDF, of the sort
> one is expected to use in expressing any knowledge with RDF.  (If you
> want to talk about widgets, you're expected to do so by creating a
> vocabulary for talking about widgets.  I'm suggesting that a viable if
> cumbersome way to _say_ "a or b" is to _describe_as_true_ the sentence
> "a or b".)

[This now has little to do with graphs, and more to do with RDF.]

How is the meaning of this pre-arranged vocabulary going to be expressed?
Can the meaning be expressed in RDF at all?  (If you punt to natural
language descriptions of the meaning of the vocabulary, you may as well
make an entire KB be a string.)  Is the meaning compatible with the RDF
meaning of the triples that encode the sentences?

Received on Friday, 23 August 2002 15:25:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:37 UTC